Which other articles should link to Generalized structure tensor? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I have listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 1 an angle trisection image that Sunwukongmonkeygod ( talk · contribs) added to angle trisection. Please contribute to the discussion there. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
My first thought when I see additive function is the article corresponding to Cauchy's functional equation; I think we need more links between the articles presently at additive function, additive map, and Cauchy's functional equation. I'd like to bring the matter up here, rather than at the article talk pages, to see if any of the expert Wikipedians with an interest in mathematics can provide some input, before making a formal proposal on the article talk page(s). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to propose it formally without input from people interested in mathematics, but not necessarily mathematicians. There is considerable overlap between those articles; equivalence relation has sections pointing to equivalence class, quotient set (which redirects to equivalence class), and partition of a set. Perhaps some merger of the articles would be appropriate, if we can avoid Marxist interpretations of class. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Should Semi-major axis be moved to Elliptical axis? See Talk:Semi-major axis#Requested move 4 January 2016. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Could we get some input on this article over at AfC? Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 12:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The article
Degeneracy (mathematics) has been
proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing
{{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
14:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Cherkash seems to systematically replace s' by s's in various math articles and move them as well. Affected articles are Pappus's hexagon theorem, Pappus's area theorem, Desargues's theorem, Pappus's centroid theorem. I don't really have strong opinion on the subject although to my knowledge the old spellings were correct (and used in math literature) and I'm always a bit wary about articles getting moved from correct version to another due to (individual) taste preferences.
Crudely speaking both versions seems to be correct with various spelling and grammar guides disagreeing or simply declaring it a matter of taste. In math literature both spelling can be found as well (a Google books test on Desargues'(s) theorem for instance yielded 15,800 hits for Desargues' theorem versus 24,500 hits for Desargues's theorem).
So what are the opinions here? Everbody ok with such moves?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
See Draft:Katugampola fractional operators and Draft:Thin plate energy functional. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
When editing a Wikipedia article are mathematical algorithms "invented", or are they "discovered"? Or maybe it doesn't matter either way? -- 82.132.234.81 ( talk) 18:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Which other articles should link to Egorychev method? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
No-retraction theorem is only indirectly mentioned in " Brouwer fixed-point theorem"; no article, not even redirect, why? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 17:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Arabic numerals#Numerals and numeral systems that readers of this page might wish to join. Paul August ☎ 15:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I have proposed a change to the JC article on the JC talk page in the section titled 'Symmetric Case'. I need someone to implement it who has better editing skills than I do. Thank you,
L.Andrew Campbell (
talk)
02:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
If the new article titled Local cosine tree is worth keeping, it needs some cleanup and other work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion here about renaming the article Graph (mathematics). There appears to be consensus in favor of a new name (at least among the small number of editors who have commented), but not about whether the target should be Graph (graph theory) or Graph (discrete mathematics). Additional input is welcome. -- JBL ( talk) 15:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. Could someone take a look at Draft:Lattice Delay Networks and offer an informed opinion as to the veracity and state of the article. Please ping me if and when you do. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 12:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed an internal error
[cc7bc57d] 2015-12-17 13:38:05: Fatal exception of type "MWException"
here. Not having a \binom in a \limits subscript appears to have fixed it. I assume correct LaTex would be to use something like \substack, but in any case I am a bit worried that I get thrown an exception instead of a helpful error message. Does anybody have an idea or should I post this to WP:VPT instead? — Kusma ( t· c) 13:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Category:Benedictine mathematicians, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 04:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Re: the "incomprehensibility" problem discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-06/In the media: what would you think of putting WP:Hatnotes at the top of technical articles, along the lines of
I would find this very helpful. I often go to look up a math topic I've heard of, and wade through several paragraphs before I realize how badly unprepared I am (I'm a first-year undergraduate). Math gives very little context besides the definition; it's much easier for a nonspecialist to understand what Battle of Towton is about than Carathéodory's extension theorem. Math books list prerequisites in Chapter 0, but Wikipedia has no Chapter 0, so it's easy to get out of one's depth with no idea how to retreat. There might be OR concerns, but I think it would usually be fairly obvious. FourViolas ( talk) 22:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
For many articles simple honesty would require that one should say "an understanding of WHATEVER is needed" rather than "...is recommended". Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
A quote from the Signpost article linked in the beginning of this discussion (see "Reproducing kernel (impenetrable science)" there):
Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 21:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thoughts on
this edit to
Geodesic are welcome. I've
started a discussion on the talk page.
Sławomir
Biały
15:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this Wall-Sun-Sun article section for the existence of such primes, could be a little more balanced to mention Wall's original hypothesis of non-existence, and consequently his open question that these primes may, or may not exist after all.
References
One should not write this:
but rather this:
Likewise "lcm" should use \operatorname{lcm}, and it is horribly vulgar to use an asterisk for ordinary multiplication in a TeX-like setting. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This section starts by saying this:
WHICH section of WHICH article?? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Please take a look at the conclusion of Zhi-Zong-Sun and Zhi-Wei-Sun's paper, pages 386+.
It states what I've stated above, although less elegantly. Why, has everyone overlooked this part of their paper?
Z. H. Sun and Z. W. Sun, Fibonacci numbers and Fermat's last theorem, Acta Arithmetica, Vol. 60, No. 4 (1992), 371-388
I suggest that we come up with an update for the article, that is balanced to reflect this previously unrecognized viewpoint, ie , where means exactly divides, . Primedivine ( talk) 18:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
EDIT The abstract example above clarifies the proof by contradiction.
The problem named as, "The non-existence of Wall–Sun–Sun primes", as shown at
OEIS. I have seen this referenced in several papers, where the original viewpoint or consensus was that they do not exist.
Primedivine (
talk)
14:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been working a lot today on the Hand-waving article (which is much broader and more general than just the maths usage, and also includes, barely, nose-following). I'm having difficulty finding a clear definition of nose-following in a RS. The best I can come up with (as I used at the Follow one's nose disambiguation page) "a mathematics publishing and pedagogical term meaning to pursue a mathematical solution by mechanistically applying one's already-understood concepts without learning or applying anything new". I'm not certain this is properly nuanced (especially since I ran into two seemingly positive uses: "the ... enlightened nose-following that mark mathematical exploration" and "they did not yet know the 'follow your nose' proof tactic which I learned in my first upper division math class in college", plus contextually neutral ones like "The thing about nose-following proofs is that they are not very interesting. They need to be taught to students, of course" and "A student needs a tremendous amount of experience before they are ready to do math by simply following their nose."), and I'd like to have a source before putting it in the article (all these come from blogs and forums). Worse, the article says nose-following is the opposite of hand-waving, but what I've been able to glean of the meaning of nose-following, the two concepts are totally tangential, and certainly not antonyms. This suggests either our article is saying something wrong, a bunch of people are wrong on the Internet (I know that's hard to believe), or I have way too little information to grok with fullness what "opposite" relationship is meant.
That maths section at the article badly needs work. After I reworked a lot of it, I discovered the entire thing was copy-pasted from a Quora post, making it both OR and COPYVIO. Maybe enough of it's been altered by subsequent edits to not be a copyvio (and the Q poster's name is very familiar, so he might be 'a Pedian who wouldn't object anyway), but it looks to me like a lot of the assertions are opinional, and one was already flagged as iffy.
Also, the term "nose proofs" sometimes hyphenated at "nose-proofs" (plus "nose-proofing", etc.) appear to be directly related and should be covered in the same section. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
History of numbers is currently almost the most vacuous article that can be imagined. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
What should become of the article titled Trillium theorem? Deletion is proposed on the ground that no theorem by that name can be found in the Civilized part of the Universe, but might it be known by some other name and otherwise worthy of inclusion? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
In case that it is simply one of those "well known but unnamed theorems" and no appropriate Russian source can be found there is also the option of moving its content to another article (like circumcircle or triangle) before deleting it.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 00:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I've added some sources but none give it a name as a theorem. I suggest moving to Incenter–excenter circle following MathWorld [1] as this at least gets two (low quality) hits in Google scholar. Spinning the article to be more about the circle and less about the theorem shouldn't be difficult. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Some general comments:
-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 03:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Suppose the article titled Giraffe began like this:
That is the level at which the article titled History of numbers currently stands. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for asking something that's not really related to Wikipedia, but here goes. I recently put on line a paper I wrote commenting on the attempt of Louis de Branges de Bourcia to prove the Riemann Hypothesis. How can I bring it to the attention of those who would be interested? Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 09:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Please offer comments at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 19:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Can we get some eyes to take a look at Draft:Extended mathematical Programming (EMP)? Comments and thoughts will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help. Onel5969 TT me 12:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This draft is stalled at AFC because regular reviewers are unable to evaluate the validity of the subject as an acceptable article topic, please help. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm currently attending this workshop which is charged with producing a white paper on how to make (or the prospects for making) progress towards a library of mathematics suited to today's digital world. As there are already a number of candidate languages in current use there are questions of who such a GDML is for, how compatible or intertranslatable the extent candidates are, whether the initial focus should be at the level of vocabulary, syntax, ambiguity (in either vocabulary or syntax), functions, concepts, or semantics, and like questions.
Are there members of WikiProject Mathematics who feel they could usefully represent the wikiproject's (or more generally Wikipedia's) attitudes towards, and opinions about, GDML's goals, prospects, methodology, etc.? Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 20:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello there. Recently I am reading matrix calculus and there is one scalar-by-matrix identity that I could not understand.
According to my understanding and nominator layout, it should be while the wiki page suggests that it should be instead. There is no such identity in the matrix cookbook (perhaps we can replace the matrix A with I in derivative #124?), so I seek your advice. Estorva ( talk) 14:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Estirva and @Tsirel: You deficiency of TeX skills is showing. Here's a comment I just left on the talk page of the article discussed here:
When one writes {\rm tr} in TeX one does not get proper spacing before and after "tr". Thus
- is coded as a {\rm tr} B, and
- is coded as a \operatorname{tr} B, and
- is coded as a \operatorname{tr} (B).
Writing \operatorname{tr} results in a certain amount of space before and after tr, and there is less space when (round brackets) follow tr than when they don't. The form {\rm tr}, on the other hand, involves no spacing conventions. The form \operatorname{tr} is standard usage and I edited accordingly.
The same thing applies to \text{tr}, which both of you used here. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Both variants,
(from propagator and history) are bad. In the first, the prime is misplaced. In the second, the dagger fails to penetrate its victim and there is an ugly gap between the i and the del operator. Does anyone know of a workaround (or even a supported feature)? YohanN7 ( talk) 10:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Here: Talk:Wave function#Revision 2016-02-08 YohanN7 ( talk) 13:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering if Spacetime triangle diagram technique should be moved either to Spacetime triangle diagram or to Spacetime triangle? (I found the article full of crude solecisms, some of which I cleaned up, and bizarrely over-complicated TeX code written by a psychotic (which probably means it was written by some software package of the kind used by people who don't know TeX code) and I cleaned up some of that too.) Ceteris paribus, I think shorter titles are better, partly because they're more likely to be found by using the search box. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The user, Ryanexler is planting a reference in various articles. He/she (most likely to be Jakob Schwichtenberg ) has done this once before (last year) and was then reverted by me. I don't feel like being this mans nemesis around here. Someone else should have a look. YohanN7 ( talk) 12:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Others did revert, but he is at it again. YohanN7 ( talk) 10:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
This proposed change in the title of an article might perhaps benefit from insights of participants in this page. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
We have a new article titled Georg Cantor's first set theory article, written largely by an expert on the history of the matter, R. J. Gray, who has published refereed papers on the topic.
I have added a "mergefrom" tag to it, which may be controversial. There is a large overlap between the two articles. The rationale for creating a separate article with a separate title is explained by R. J. Gray in this section of my user talk page.
Currently no other articles link to this new article. So that's something to work on. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The article Effect algebra was copied from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.00567v1.pdf, making it a copyright violation. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I've done some editing on this article. If it was a copyright violation earlier, it probably is not now. It didn't have a proper introductory sentence; I've added that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Recap: I am blind and a newbie, but an expert on the Jacobian Conjecture(JC). Around January 20, I proposed a change to the JC article on the talk JC page, under the title Symmetric Case. I pointed to it here, but the pointer was archived with no action. Needs a reference to two papers by the same two authors in the same year. Please help.
L.Andrew Campbell ( talk) 01:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I have created the System U article and would appreciate if somebody checked its wikiness. Also, looking at related articles, I noticed they have this WikiProject's rating template on their talk pages. I don't know what the process around these is, but this article should probably have one as well. — Matěj Grabovský ( talk) 12:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to get P-value fallacy in WP:DYK. ( User:Sunrise gets all the credit, not me.) It'd be nice to have a decent mathematics article on the Main Page. I'd appreciate it if a few stats people looked it over and/or suggested a good "hook" for it. Realistically speaking, we probably can't expect to find very many stats people among the DYK reviewers, so I'm asking here. If anyone has comments, please be bold, or leave notes on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
In this section I found only two sieve methods listed, not including the sieve of Eratosthenes about which everyone learns in elementary school, and which is in fact the only one that I know anything about. I added several more. Quite possibly the section needs more work. Maybe even subsections on different kinds of sieves? Or maybe not? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Some of you may be interested in this:
There is a Tech Talk next Monday, 29 February at 20:00 UTC (12 Noon Pacific Time) about Zotero and the mw:citoid service.
The main subject is how to extract accurate, automated bibliographic citations from websites. This talk is mostly about Zotero, which is a free and open-source citation management tool. Zotero is used on the Wikipedias through the automagic citoid service. Citoid is currently an option in the visual editor and will (eventually) be used for automated citations in the wikitext editor at some Wikipedias. Zotero is also used by many academics and researchers, and most of the information presented will be useful to people outside of Wikipedia as well.
Please share this invitation with anyone that you believe will be interested. If you have questions, then please leave a note on my talk page. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 03:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at this article. The "Gimel" hebrew letter in the images looks like a Nun rather than a Gimel. A Gimel has a foot in the lower right. Naraht ( talk) 22:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
<math>\gimel</math>
, so if it's wrong, then it's actually wrong in our TeX rendering engine, not just the article. --
Trovatore (
talk)
00:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Our list of new articles at User:Mathbot/Changes_to_mathlists includes a new article titled Modified KdV–Burgers equation. It was a total orphan, so I created one link to it in the "See also" section of the article titled Korteweg–de Vries equation. Then I decided to add it to the List of dynamical systems and differential equations topics, and I found that even " Korteweg–de Vries equation" is not listed there, and it's not immediately clear where within that list it would belong. Should the list itself get reorganized? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion here if that topic is of interest. It has been going on since Feb 26, but just wanted to make sure folks here are aware of it. Jytdog ( talk) 18:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
We now have a List of things named after Friedrich Bessel. Perhaps strangely, I found a list that was not empty but that had no internal links. I created those links. But possibly the article should be expanded. Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know where to go, so I'm posting this here. There has been another polymath project solved! Can someone add this information to the "Problem solved" section of the article please? I think it can go under the heading of "Polymath proposal problem" under "Problem solved" section. This problem was going to become a polymath project, but someone else proved it so quickly before it becoming a polymath project (with number). However, I think it is another achievement worth mentioning in the article. Due to my limited mathematics background, I don't think I'm able to write about it as well as someone else with a major in mathematics or advanced knowledge in mathematics. If not, does someone know anyone, who has a strong background in mathematics, that currently still active on Wikipedia? So that I can ask him/her out personally. Thank you! Pendragon5 ( talk) 00:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The article titled Fractional Fourier entropy begins like this:
This doesn't set up the context properly. Could someone who knows this topic improve the intro? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Greetings. If someone has a moment, there's an article over at AfC which needs some expert advice on whether or not it's notable. Assistance would be greatly appreciated: Draft:GBT - Generalised Beam Theory. Onel5969 TT me 18:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
In the Russian Wikipedia there is a picture of Dmitry Konstantinovich Faddeev. Could someone speaking the language have that picture uploaded to Wikimedia commons (or tell me how to link the Russian version)? YohanN7 ( talk) 13:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
For now, "Successive approximation" redirects to Successive approximation ADC(!), and "Iteration" disambigs to Iterated function, and Iterative method is a piece of applied mathematics. But it seems to me that both "Successive approximation" and "Iterations" are also mathematical terms. Or not? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 18:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I have made Successive approximation into a disambiguation page. It needs further work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Look, just for fun: Article needs a re-write (toned down from: WTF is this $hit). :-) Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 18:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Continued here. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 2:48 pm, Today (UTC−5)
In this section of a talk page, two users say that the page titled Exponential function should deal only with the base-e (natural) exponential function and not other bases. Both of them seem to take the confused view that if other bases are allowed then the article is about the binary operation of exponentiation in general, as opposed to exponential functions of one variable. I agree with them that the binary operation of exponentiation should be, and is, the topic of a different article rather than this one. I wrote this brief explanation:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I have set up an RfC on this at Talk:Exponential_function#RfC: Should exponential function be about exponentiation to any base?. The explanation above is not right, the question is whether the article should be about ex like for instance Exponential function at Wolfram MathWorld, or whether it is about exponential growth and decay which is what exponential functions is general are mostly about and have the current contents moved to natural exponential function. Dmcq ( talk) 23:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
See new thread at WP:VPT#Math in wikilinks broken? — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Search recent changes, and other Inspire Campaign proposals discussing the overly technical nature of some mathematical articles. The Beta_distribution has been singled out as an article with too much technical info, indeed there is much which could be cut from that article. The diff [5] on Euler's totient function has also been brought up as a case of WP:OWN. -- Salix alba ( talk): 06:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The Pi day brigade seems to have arrived late this year. Please keep a close watch on the article
pi. There is a discussion underway at
Talk:Pi, wherein a blog post is proposed to override a peer-reviewed secondary source written by the Borwein brothers. This could merit the attention of Wikipedia editors who are familiar with editing articles on mathematics and scientific topics, as opposed to Entertainment news topics which is what we seem to do mostly nowadays.
Sławomir
Biały
19:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this effort, here, to use clade diagrams to summarize pharma business acquisitions. My take at present is that the images created are devoid of standard quantitative meaning—nothing is captured by vertical and horizontal line lengths, as far as I can tell—and so they are a misapplication of this maths/graphic presentation method. Moreover, I argue that they are misleading (presenting a time axis, but not making spacing of events proportionate to the historical time differences), much harder to maintain (consider adding entries to a std Table versus this graphic), more likely to diminish article quality (in their ambiguity of content, again, over a std Table with clear headings), and therefore practically amenable to decay as a result. I would add to this, in this esteemed maths context, that they would make those who trained us, and other purists in methodology and meaning (and Edward Tufte more generally), turn in their graves/beds. After having a look at the User page and at a couple of pages linked on that sandbox page, leave your opinion here, regarding the overall effort? Thanks for your opinion. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 01:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Another pair of doubly related articles are these. Should they be merged into the same article, maybe called Semi-minor and semi-minor axes? (Not set on title). M ∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 18:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Typography#Consequences of a lack of consensus concerning inline text style mathematical formulae. — Tentacles Talk or ✉ mailto:Tentacles 22:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Mathbot appears not to have put up any new changes in User:Mathbot/Changes to mathlists since March 23, but instead in User:Mathbot/Recent changes. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 03:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I was working through stale unedited pages in the Draft namespace and discovered several very abstract geometry creations from levels of "it exists" up to stub level quality. Several of these pages (as I've listed some examples above) had not been edited (since I came through looking at them) since 2014 in the draft namespace. I am not making any accusations regarding any individual editor or type of creation except to note that these draft title land grabs are begining to be more closely looked at if there is no positive progress on them. Does WP:Maths have any suggestions/interest in improving these to the point that they are ready to be promoted to mainspace? Hasteur ( talk) 15:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I want to remind that they are drafts; that's why they exist in the draft namespace not in the main name space. The question should be whether the topics are notable or not not the actual states of content. I agree there is no value having drafts on nobodies (since they will never become main-name space articles). The above drafts, on the other hand, have potential to become main-namespace articles. Now I explain why they were created:
More broadly, the issue seems to be the unclear nature of the draft namespace. I'm on the camp that there should be no deadline; some disagree, obviously. -- Taku ( talk) 00:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we have an article on the direct limit topology already. Your draft is about Cartesian products. Are you proposing that we should have an article about Cartesian products of direct limits? Because that's what your draft is about.
Sławomir
Biały
01:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
(I appreciate everyone's patience with me, I meant it.) Please let me ask this way. Given a set, you can always put the final topology with respect to some given family of maps to the set. In particular, you can put the final topology on the set-theoretic direct limit of a direct system and the resulting topology is called the "direct limit topology". This topology is cited as an example in the final topology article rather than a synonym. Does it make sense to have an article about this topology separate from the article final topology? In particular to discuss the issue like the above? just as we have an article on quotient topology (correction to my early post: a product topology is initial not final, that was stupid). I had assumed the answer is yes. If the other editors disagree, then of course I will respect that. -- Taku ( talk) 04:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Science_and_academia#guidelines_about_living_scientists-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 06:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I'm reading into this incorrectly, but how can Elliptical distributions be in the Location-scale family, when location-scale families are univariate and elliptical distributions are multivariate? I'm working through classifying the variety of probability distributions on Wikidata using d:Property:P279, so this is how I came about this question. (Basically, am I doing something wrong? :D) -- Izno ( talk) 19:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I've created a stubby new article titled Maryna Viazovska. It could probably use more work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Would everybody who can opine on this post their thoughts at this page for discussing the proposed deletion. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The following math-related terms are in our list of the 1,000 most linked disambiguation pages for April 2016. Any help in fixing links to these pages would be appreciated:
Cheers! bd2412 T 04:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems#RfC formal system for a formal RFC on whether Gödel's incompleteness theorems should espouse the viewpoint "that formal systems are entirely formal and consist of only formal content" (see RFC for full proposal), and please weigh in if you have an opinion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
In the article titled Magma (algebra) one finds this code:
But what I see is this:
The whole point of the "nowrap" template is to prevent this kind of wrapping. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
white-space: nowrap;
by way of the .nowrap
class. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
21:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)I can reproduce it with up-to-date Chrome 49.0.2623.110 (64-bit). The line break seems to happen after the arrow for me, if I change the window to a suitable width to force the break to appear. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
<i>...</i>
. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
21:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Please review Draft:Kundu equation. If you do not know how to perform an AFC review please simply post your assessment to the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The usage and topic of surface is under discussion, see Talk:Surface -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 05:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
יהודה שמחה ולדמן ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently going around and changing every integral on Wikipedia from this:
to this:
Note: In addition to having the limits placed far above the integration sign, the thin space between the integrand and differential is replaced by a full space. Do we agree on the global application of this style decision to all of our math articles?
Sławomir
Biały
18:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
\int\limits_a^b
generally be changed to \int_a^b
? I.e. is always changed to ? —
crh 23 (
Talk)
16:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
\int_a^b
is more common than \int\limits_a^b
and would be preferable in most instances, my opinion is that going from article to article changing typographical style according to personal preference was the main problem here. If the editor in question used \int\limits_a^b
in a completely new article, it would be a little odd, but not a big problem. So my sense is that going from article to article enforcing \int_a^b
is problematic, too--it could lead to pointless edit wars. I'd be in favor of adding the preference for \int_a^b
to
MOS:MATH instead. --
Mark viking (
talk)
18:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
\limits
blindly removed whenever it occurs immediately after \int
?—
crh 23 (
Talk)
20:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
\limits
, though, so maybe changing that situation is fine.
Ozob (
talk)
12:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
\int\!\!\!\int\limits_D
to produce that. Could that happen? —
crh 23 (
Talk)
14:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
\int
for multiple integrals. —
crh 23 (
Talk)
16:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)This project is mostly physical (and advertised on wikiproject physics), but may interest some mathematicians, too. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 11:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Greetings and salutations. Draft:Dragonfly algorithm is a draft sitting at AfC which I could really use input on. Thanks in advance.
Oh, and if you're in the mood, there is a stale draft, Draft:Subdivision curve, which I also could use some help evaluating. Thanks in advance. Onel5969 TT me 13:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/physikerwelt/status/720310670512631808 -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 18:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
19:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)The beta page can be found at http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Math -- Salix alba ( talk): 23:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I think in the "Definition" section that "(the unit tangent)" and "(the unit normal)" should be interchanged. That is "(the unit tangent)" should be where "(the unit normal)" is, and "(the unit normal)" should be where "(the unit tangent)" is. MGilly9 ( talk) 09:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this effort, here, to use clade diagrams to summarize pharma business acquisitions. My take at present is that the images created are devoid of standard quantitative meaning—nothing is captured by vertical and horizontal line lengths, as far as I can tell—and so they are a misapplication of this maths/graphic presentation method. Moreover, I argue that they are misleading (presenting a time axis, but not making spacing of events proportionate to the historical time differences), much harder to maintain (consider adding entries to a std Table versus this graphic), more likely to diminish article quality (in their ambiguity of content, again, over a std Table with clear headings), and therefore practically amenable to decay as a result. I would add to this, in this esteemed maths context, that they would make those who trained us, and other purists in methodology and meaning (and Edward Tufte more generally), turn in their graves/beds. After having a look at the User page and at a couple of pages linked on that sandbox page, leave your opinion here, regarding the overall effort? Thanks for your opinion. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 01:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Area of a circle#Circular Argument. I am not asking for support for either side, but for input from those with higher math education than either me or the IP.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I just reverted a change by Yonathanyeremy ( talk · contribs) and looking at their other ones I can't see anything else that I agree with. Anyone else like to have a quick check and perhaps say what on earth is happening thanks. Dmcq ( talk) 13:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
We have a short article titled cyclic function that is not in very good shape right now. In particular, can anyone understand this final sentence?:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Editors,
Let me explain this issue briefly.
An integrable generalization of the nonlinear Schroedinger equation with additional quintic nonlinerity and a nonlinear dispersive term given by
proposed in (kundu|1984) is known as the Kundu-Eckhaus equation (more details on this equation with its other aspects, applications and references can be found in my Sandbox). Eckhaus equation introduced later is a particular case of the Kundu-Eckhaus equation (with ) and therefore not the same equation as incorrectly mentioned in that Wiki page. Note that while the Eckhaus equation is linearizable, the Kundu-Eckhaus equation is reducible only to the nonlinear Schroedinger equation through the same transformation. On the other hand, the Kundu-Eckhaus equation can be derived from the Kundu equation as a particular case. Therefore IMO there may be three logical options: (1) Eckhaus equation can go as a subsection under Kundu-Eckhaus equation, (2) Kundu-Eckhaus equation can go as a subsection under Kundu equation, (3) Kundu-Eckhaus equation can go as an independent entry.
Hope to get your valuable suggestion/opinion/advice. Anjan.kundu ( talk) 06:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC) April 27, 2016
Hello Prof. Slawomir Biaty, Thank you very much for your valuable comments and advice. Hope other editors would also agree to it with more suggestions and finally the 'tag' marked now to the contribution of Kundu equation could be removed.
With best regards. Anjan.kundu ( talk) 05:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
It appears that a Dashboard.wikiedu.org course (Calculus I at Howard University) is getting active with 5 student editors working on several calculus related pages. I have just reverted two of them on Integration by substitution before I realized that this was part of a sponsored program. I believe my reverts were the correct thing to do, but I am wondering whether or not I should have been more proactive in pointing out what the problems with the edits were. There are several issues involved here that I think should be addressed by project members. I have seen this type of project several times already and in each instance the program has left messes on several pages that have had to been cleaned up by us. Is there a way to inform the program directors that while the intentions of this program may be good and noble, the direct consequence is that a lot of unnecessary cleanup work is being created for us and perhaps there are other ways to achieve their ends without over-burdening the project editors. As WP editors we do not act as referees for the material presented on the pages, we do not evaluate, nor correct – unless backed up by a reliable source. By an extension of the philosophy upon which that position is based, should we be acting as teachers of the, in this case, Howard University students? Howard U. is not paying us a salary, nor does it have any control over who we are; I think the university should be concerned about that. Any comments, suggestions, etc. Thanks. Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 04:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at
Talk:Area of a disk#RfC article title: "Area of a circle" or "Area of a disk" that would benefit from the insight of members of WPM. Please direct your comments there.
Sławomir
Biały
17:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The article titled Selection principle could probably use some work in the intro section. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been looking at the "area of a disk"/"area of a circle" article...noticed it's rated "low importance"...was wondering why...it would seem it should be the exact opposite (that is, important for Wikipedia to have a good article on such a fundamental/elementary/and widely taught topic)...it seems the articles rated highly important are often of a very advanced nature (which may be fine, but less advanced though very important articles like this are also highly important)..I went to the pages on the ranking but it appears there has been no activity over there for many years...so posted here...are these ratings irrelevant at this point and of no consequence to anything? or should they be changed/done away with because they interfere with editorial activity? 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 14:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking for a "free" version of the image on the last page of this PDF:
[14]. I would like to use it in the new section at
pi, with a caption about Queen Dido and the isoperimetric problem. Does anyone know how we might find such a thing? (I was going to add: short of flying to Rome, but the irony is I actually will be in Rome. Still, let's not...)
Sławomir
Biały
22:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Please see: [ [15]]
73.4.14.51 ( talk) 14:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, so I don't know where the best place to post this is. I have this RFC that is highly applicable to this WikiProject that should be advertised here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungryce ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Could I get some more eyes on our WP:BLP article on Japanese graph theorist Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi, please? Takahiro4 has been making a mess of it. It's not the only recent problem involving this editor; see User talk:David Eppstein#kawarabayashi article (or Takahiro4's contributions) for context. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Disruption continues at
pi. At some point, I think ANI is called for. I am convinced that the editor is just trolling. On the talk page, he requested a section on Fourier series, and now is intent on adding templates against policy. I think it's time this editor be blocked. He is wasting the time of productive editors.
Sławomir
Biały
15:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Just as one writes [[cat]]s so that the reader sees "cats" and clicks on it and sees the article titled "cat", someone typed [[arithmetic of quadratic form]]s in an article. That doesn't make sense and I changed it to [[arithmetic of quadratic forms]]. However, we currently have no article titled Arithmetic of quadratic forms. Should we? And can someone here start the article? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
It was pointed out to me that the graph File:Champernowne_constant_logscale.svg used in Champernowne constant has a mistake: the dots corresponding to the 41-st digit is out of place (it should be at height 10^{2504}. Not sure how that happened! :/ Anyway, at the moment I don't have access to Maple, so it would be nice if someone could re-do the graph (the code should be just a couple of lines, one could also take the data from here). Notice that being the misplaced point much bigger than in the graph, this means that the graph is going to be really flat, I guess it's OK, but another option is to leave that point out of the graph (mentioning it in the caption), or to go for a double logarithmic scale.-- Sandrobt ( talk) 23:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
We have a new article titled Chow group of a stack. In the first sentence, it links to Chow group, which redirects to Chow ring. Should it be left that way, or should Chow group perhaps be a disambiguation page, or should we leave Chow group intact as a redirect while also putting a hatnote atop Chow ring telling the reader that Chow group of a stack exists, or should something else be done? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The article List of Laplace transforms was recently forked out of Laplace transform. Is this really necessary and helpful to likely readers of Laplace transform? Please comment at Talk:Laplace transform#List of Laplace transforms. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The page titled function theory redirected to function (mathematics). I had followed a link to that name from a new biographical article on a mathematician, in which I suspected the term has the first sense listed below. So I changed it to a disambiguation page, as follows:
See:
- Complex analysis, the study of holomorphic functions of a complex variable. Especially in works written during the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, the term function theory often has this sense.
- Function (mathematics)
- This disambiguation page lists mathematics articles associated with the same title.
Quite possibly this could benefit from more eyeballs. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there any that should be moved to the main space? Grogamoco ( talk) 12:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
You might want to weigh in on what to do, here. Uncle G ( talk) 21:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Could someone who knows more about these things have a look at this? Obviously this title is incorrect... -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there any content worth saving in Matrix decomposition into clans? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
John von Neumann is being reviewed as a potential Good Article. Please participate in the review at Talk:John von Neumann/GA1. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I occasionally see the phrase "advanced calculus". Sometimes it seems to mean introductory real analysis (e.g., sequences, continuity, what distinguishes the reals from the rationals) and sometimes it seems to mean topics in calculus that are usually introduced later rather than earlier in a sequence of calculus courses (e.g., trig substitution, multivariate calculus). Right now, Advanced calculus is a red link. What should we do with it? My first thought is to redirect it to Real analysis. — Kodiologist ( t) 15:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I once taught a course called "advanced calculus for engineers", consisting of topics needed as prerequistes to a fluid dynamics course, and about half of it was complex analysis, so "real analysis" might not be a perfect target for a redirect. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm having a disagreement with an anonymous editor over the preferred level of technicality and redundancy in the lead section and lead sentence of Garden of Eden (cellular automaton). Third opinions welcome; see article history for alternative versions and Talk:Garden of Eden (cellular automaton) for discussion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
This has now progressed to an RfC. -- JBL ( talk) 14:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I wonder about the pertinence of the following article: Gonit Sora. I just removed a link which didn't add something to Évariste Galois. I wonder if it is not kind of spam. Xavier Combelle ( talk) 11:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The article titled Durand–Kerner method begins like this:
In numerical analysis, the Durand–Kerner method, established 1960–66 and named after E. Durand and Immo Kerner, also called the method of Weierstrass, established 1859–91 and named after Karl Weierstrass, is a root-finding algorithm for solving polynomial equations. In other words, the method can be used to solve numerically the equation
- ƒ(x) = 0
where ƒ is a given polynomial, which can be taken to be scaled so that the leading coefficient is 1.
What in the world does "established" mean? The method was "established 1960–66", but when known by a different name it was "established 1859–91. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The move to make the client side SVG rendering the default is now live on the English Wikipedia. This is task T131177 billed as "MathML now the default" but I don't think MathML is actually used even on firefox.
I'm currently getting lots of bugs when editing. The only way I can resolve these is to switch my preference to PNG mode save my preferences. Then you can switch the preference back to "MathML with SVG or PNG fallback" mode and things work fine again.-- Salix alba ( talk): 21:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
If anyone using Firefox wants to get real MathML back again you can reenable the MathML with a bit of CSS
.mwe-math-fallback-image-inline {
display: none !important;
}
.mwe-math-mathml-a11y {
display:inherit;
position: inherit;
clip:inherit;
width:inherit;
height:inherit;
opacity:inherit
}
Add this to your Special:MyPage/vector.css and the MathML will reappear.-- Salix alba ( talk): 16:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
1599 = 650×2 + 299
650 = 299×2 + 52
299 = 52×5 + 39
52 = 39×1 + 13
39 = 13×3 + 0
Algorithm#Euclid.E2.80.99s_algorithm
This graphic shows 650 subtracted from 1599 twice to leave a remainder of 299.
It does not show 299 subtracted twice from 650 to get 52.
It shows 52 subtracted five times from 299 to get 39.
It does not show 39 subtracted from 52 to get 13.
Shouldn't those omissions be remedied?
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there one? I see a few scattered refs pointing to various math questions posed in this journal (and the companion/offshoot Mathematical Questions with Their Solutions). The latest information I can find is a 1992 article about these journals ( doi:10.1016/0315-0860(92)90057-I) saying there was at most an index published within a few certain volumes. DMacks ( talk) 18:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
An article of possible interest to others here-- Egomath, a mathematical search engine for Wikipedia--has been proposed for deletion. -- Mark viking ( talk) 18:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
If anyone knows anything about the Milne-Thompson method for finding an analytic function, such as (1) whether the article ought to exist, or (2) what more it should say, or (3) references to cite, etc., then there it is. (I found it badly in need of copy-editing and did some of that, but probably more of that can be done.) Note: "Milne-Thompson" is a hyphenated name of one person, _not_ two names; hence it is properly a hyphen rather than an en-dash. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Mathbot is going to break soon, because of changes to the API. The bot owner doesn't seem to edit very often. If anyone is interested in this, please see the latest discussion at WP:BOTN. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 01:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Redzemp insists on replacing "sphere" by "perfect sphere" in the mathematics article spheroid. My position is that this is meaningless verbosity, like talking about "wet water". Please discuss at Talk:Spheroid if you have an opinion on this. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I've found a number of very brief articles on families of polynomials
and probably a few more. They are all very brief, barely more than just references, and don't even have a definitions instead they have empty formulas which are causing parsing error. I'm not sure if they are notable enough and I've prodded the first. -- Salix alba ( talk): 16:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
There is now an AFD on the subject Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dual q-Hahn polynomials (2nd nomination).-- Salix alba ( talk): 15:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
There is some discussion at Talk:Integral on whether the standard intuitive idea that the Lebesgue integral proceeds by "partitioning the range" of a function is indeed correct and helpful to the reader. I am unclear what the specific objection to this content is, but I think it would benefit from a third opinion. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 10:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
In the Template:Areas of mathematics, the "Divisions" are listed as: Pure, Applied, Discrete, Computational, Meta-, and Recreational. I am not sure this is helpful or accurate. For instance, it elevates Recreational mathematics to one of 6 presumptively equal divisions of the whole field of mathematics–an interesting but possibly unbalanced characterization. Below is WP's assessment of the six associated "division summary" articles along with my comments.
division | Wikipedia's rating | my assessment |
---|---|---|
Pure mathematics | B Class Top Importance | well written |
Applied mathematics | B Class Top Importance | well written |
Discrete mathematics | B Class Top Importance | well written but overlaps the other so-called divisions |
Computational mathematics | unrated | needs a lot of work; more a list than the summary of a division |
Meta-mathematics | C Class Top Importance | fairly well written but needs more work |
Recreational mathematics | Start Class Low Importance | not well organized or written–but should be Medium importance |
I would eventually like to bring a little more consistency to all of these articles. Are they really a fair overview of all of mathematics? I am not qualified to say. I had a brief discussion about all this with WP editor and mathematician Bill Cherowitzo who said:
I am particularly interested in improving the article Recreational mathematics and would welcome some collaboration.-- Toploftical ( talk) 17:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Everybody should have a look at Template talk:Areas of mathematics. There are some good suggestions there. Other people have been troubled by the current contents of the template. As a temporary experiment, I am going to demote Recreational Mathematics to one of the "areas". Whatever it is, it is not one of the major divisions of math.-- Toploftical ( talk) 17:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
There now a new tracking category Category:Pages with math errors which list all pages which have a mathematical syntax error in their formula. It might be worth having an occasional glance at. I think this relates to T49037. For many pages the errors can be fixed by simply doing a WP:PURGE on the page. -- Salix alba ( talk): 21:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
SPA Drriemann ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding references to Adrian Dudek to various number theory articles. These appear to be primary sources, rather than secondary sources, and some are self-published (on arxiv). Are any worth keeping? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
A new article titled Universal trinity bears the "mathematical logic" category tag. It looks like either an attempt to do theology via mathematical logic or a use of mathematical logic as a metaphor in theology. I suspect it constitutes "original research" as defined by WP:OR. I have proposed its deletion and notified its creator. If the creator of the article deletes the "prod" tag, I'll take it to AfD unless someone beats me to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The juxtaposition of words "universal trinity" appears in that source, but it does not correspond to the article that you wrote. If you want to write an article based on secondary sources, then nothing is stopping you from doing that. That article may or may not be deleted, depending on whether it conforms to our policies and guidelines. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 20:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
-- John Cummings ( talk) 14:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
There are four articles that link to the WP:DAB page characteristic equation, and I suspect that only this project's participants will be able to correctly disambiguate them. The four articles are:
Disambiguation has been needed for two and a half years. Would anyone here like to tackle these? We at WP:DPL would be most grateful. — Gorthian ( talk) 17:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm having a disagreement with an editor over the new article continuum expression of the first law of thermodynamics. This seems like a reasonable equation to have covered somewhere on Wikipedia. I've checked the citation. An editor with apparently no knowledge of the subject, and also apparently someone unable to give a clear reason, is insistently replacing this new article with a redirect to first law of thermodynamics, where the expression in continuum mechanics is not given. I'm hardly an expert on continuum mechanics, but this does seem like something worth having an article on, and a stub seems like a good start. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a requested move going on at Talk:Root-finding algorithm#Requested move 22 June 2016 that may be of interest to members of this project. Jenks24 ( talk) 04:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linear number. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
In the article titled First law of thermodynamics (fluid mechanics), one finds these words near the beginning:
Just below that, I find this:
Then the word "where:" followed by this:
All but two of the instances of displayed TeX in the article just say "Failed to parse", followed by the TeX code.
But when I log out, the are rendered normally.
What's going on and how can the problem be fixed? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
A new biographical article about a Russian mathematician noted for his work on group theory and linear inequalities. The article could use some help fleshing out some detail of his contributions to the subject. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
One could set this as <math> \Sigma_1^1 </math> and along with it tolerate the resulting mismatches in font sizes and the fact that the appearance of varies with user-preference settings and browsers, but if I want to go with the first notation above, is there a way to get better vertical alignment of the subscript and the superscript? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see Tau (constant), a new article that looks a bit iffy. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 04:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Since MathML has become default and some bugs have been fixed, most of my resistance towards using Tex inline is gone. (PNG displayed inline Tex looked aWful inline.) What are the general feelings about recommending Tex for all math from now on? Does inline MathML display well on most (all?) devices? YohanN7 ( talk) 12:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Does the article Parabolic partial differential equation look like it is complete? If not could someone make some notes on its talk page about what it needs? (Thre is actually a comment there about it needing something but doesn't say what and is from 2007.) Thank you. RJFJR ( talk) 01:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be an important thing missing in this mathematics article. I invite to please see Talk:Möbius energy. Mr. Barris ( talk) 17:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Did I encounter a new way to traverse binary trees or is this method mentioned on some existing page? Jidanni ( talk) 15:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Could do with an additional pair of eyes the recent edits to Ellipse. See also my talk page for a discussion on it.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 14:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
60.231.179.112 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is (helpfully) tagging dead links in math articles. In the process of doing that, however, they are also (less helpfully) replacing links to sections of articles with links to redirects. For example, this edit replaces a perfectly reasonable piped link with a link to a cryptic redirect. This edit replaces unambiguous links with redirects like coordinate chart that at least have the potential for ambiguity. WP:NOTBROKEN seems to urge against going the other way, replacing redirects with direct links. I would think that this would cut both ways. Anyway, I have reverted a few of the more questionable edits, but more eyes might be warranted. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit to Dirac delta function. There is an editor who insists on it at Talk:Dirac delta function/Archive 1#Can we rename it to 'Dirac delta distribution' ?. Please comment there. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:Science technology engineering and mathematics, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Ottawahitech ( talk) 09:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)please ping me
I'd like to undo a merge that was done some time ago of the page Teichmüller modular group into the page mapping class group. The former is a special case of the latter but it is of enough interest to deserve its own page (in fact, in geometric group theory the name "mapping class group" is reserved by default to that of a surface). An informative analogy is to compare the situation to the similar one between braid groups and Artin groups.
One of the reasons advanced for the merger was that "In fact, Teichmueller modular group is not heard among experts as mapping class group", which is a bit dubious (typing this term in Google yields enough results, and this is definitely a terminology I've heard people in the subject use, though not as frequently as "mapping class group"), but a better name for the page might be "Mapping class group of a surface".
I'm mostly asking this because I've been revising the page on Teichmüller space and created a page on the curve complex and both topics are heavily related to the mapping class group, so I'd like to have a decent page on the latter. jraimbau ( talk) 10:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
A proposal appeared:
Hope this is a right place for the message. If it isn't, feel free to move this info elsewhere. -- CiaPan ( talk) 20:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request services just notified me about a RFC at Talk:Content (measure theory) about how it relates to a pre-measure. I know nothing on the subject, so I hope someone more knowledgable than me could respond. -- Salix alba ( talk): 06:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Last night I wrote out the derivation of and . The formatting of the notation (in particular the spacing) doesn't look the prettiest and I may have missed a few details, so I'd like someone else to take a look as well.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
\,
, for example:
\big
versions:
\tfrac
:
The article
Chinese remainder theorem has a section
§ Dedekind's theorem, which is about "Dedekind's Theorem on the Linear Independence of Characters"
. I do not know this theorem, and the section does not provide any source or link. Moreover, the given proof does not involve the Chinese remainder theorem, but its generalization to arbitrary rings, which, as far as I know, is generally not known under this name.
Thus this article is not the right place for this Dedekind's theorem. Should this section be simply deleted, or moved elsewhere (where?) D.Lazard ( talk) 09:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Set builder notation has languished for some time in a strange state. Lately a couple users, including me, have been making efforts to improve it. Please feel free to come help bring it up to a nice state, and to make sure that the article has the right POV overall. Any references to undergraduate or graduate level books that define the notation in detail would be very welcome. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I have recently read the page on the notion of maximal torus. This article deals only with tori in compact Lie groups. Though the case of compact Lie groups should be discussed in this context, I see no reason why the article should be restricted to it. In fact I see a few arguments in favor of the opposite stance :
In addition, I think the article should be significantly rewritten to include tori in semisimple algebraic groups over arbitrary fields (which are quite important for the structure theory of these groups and also for the geometry associated to them).
To sum up, I think the Lie theory sections on Wikipedia would benefit from a reorganisation of the topics related to algebraic tori. In my opinion there should be three articles on the subject:
I'd be happy to do this re-organising myself (this might take some time) but since this would be a fairly big change for the articles in question, if anybody is interested in Lie theory and algebraic groups and likes the articles as they are I'd be happy to discuss with them other ways to incorporate what I think is needed. jraimbau ( talk) 17:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Our article about Sharkovskii's theorem spells Sharkovskii's name one way, but our article about Oleksandr Mykolaiovych Sharkovsky spells his name differently. I just fixed the first article so that it used only one spelling instead of two, and in the course of doing that I got very confused about which redirects where going where. It would be less confusing if we were able to adopt a single spelling throughout.
I tried to find out which spelling was preferred, but both spellings seem to be common. The original Ukrainian spelling is “Шарко́вський”. I am not sure how to proceed here. Probably doing nothing is acceptable, but I thought I would bring it up. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 14:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
There is also disagreement about how to transliterate “Миколайович”: All of “Mikolaiovich”, “Mykolaiovich”, and “Mykolaiovych” appear. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 14:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Some people spell the name beginning with an ‘S’ instead of ‘Sh’, but I think this is clearly wrong. We should have redirects from these spellings, but should not use them in articles. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 15:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Musean hypernumber has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Nickanc (
talk)
13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
User:174.3.155.181 vastly expanded Content (measure theory). User:Kusma reverted that edit citing where it was incorrect. User:Mark viking seemed to further explain the problems with 174.3.155.181's edit in talk. A week later 174.3.155.181's sock-puppet account reverted it all back again. I have reverted that last edit since it wasn't kosher re: fabricating support for an edit via sock-puppetry and putting on a charade of being someone else. I have no idea if its a valid good-faith edit mathematically speaking, somebody in this project should probably look it all over. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 14:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It concerns the categorizing of Mathematicians by city. The discussion can be found here [25]. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I thought that maybe the articles Tacito Augusto Farias and Douglas Smigly should be deleted for lack of notability. The second one is just 18 years old undergraduate student and the user who created it here also seems to be doing cross-wiki mass creation... TunksunT ( talk) 23:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion on whether to delete Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory. Ozob ( talk) 01:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
An article Rassias' conjecture was created some time ago, possibly by Rassias himself, as something of a promotional piece. It has been carefully sourced and I feel that is does meet WP:GNG and so I have been editing it recently to improve its quality. Some fresh eyes would probably help improve the article further.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 04:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
In the example at the top of the almost integer article, there is a formula which appears truncated to me. <math>\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1}{30}(61421-23\sqrt{5831385})} </math> appears to me with the integer 58313 instead of 5831385 under the square root - in other words, the expression is truncated. Any idea why this is or how to fix it? The illustration of the golden rectangle near the top of the golden ratio article also has a truncated formula. EdChem ( talk) 10:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Anyone want to take a crack as to whether this Draft should be moved to mainspace? Naraht ( talk) 18:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
There are four articles linking to the DAB page Pushforward (or to redirects to it); those links need to be disambiguated. Several of us at WP:DPL are scratching our heads over what to do with them. If anyone here is willing to tackle them, we'd be most grateful.
The articles are:
Many thanks for your attention! — Gorthian ( talk) 07:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Under "Karamata's characterization theorem", β need not be non negative, see Theorem 1.4.1 of Bingham, Goldie, Teugels. Accordingly, ρ can also be negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.141.176.1 ( talk) 11:23, 4 August 2016
I posted a question in over at the measurable function talk page some time ago. Is there any sense to it? YohanN7 ( talk) 11:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Article needs attention from an expert in algebraic topology. I posted a set of questions and objections on its talk page: Talk:Torsion coefficient (topology) 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 20:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Coming from a programming background, and not having much formal math schooling since high school, I find it difficult to translate the abstract mathematical notation into a language I can actually programmatically calculate. I would hazard a guess that I am not alone in this regard, although this is a bit anecdotal. Therefore, it would be awesome if a Wikiproject was started that had programmatic examples, in addition to the more abstract ones written in mathematical notation. It might even be possible to have this translation be automatic (sympy.org?). I think it would be much easier to learn complex mathematics if it was taught using python rather than Greek. -- Aaron E-J ( talk) 18:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This article, which is being translated from ru:Миварный подход, may be of interest. JohnCD ( talk) 09:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Mean value problem is an article about a problem posed by Stephen Smale. I needs work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Binary function (i.e. a bivariate function, not a function with binary variables or values) has been proposed for deletion. It's been a problem article (e.g. no sources) for years, but maybe someone wants to take the effort to save it? — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I've created a severely stubby new article title Convolution quotient. Clearly it needs work, but I'm done with it at least until morning. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Two tags have been added to the article, apparently based on the description "a great name in the theory of inequality" based on this source. Is the source sufficient for the claim? Is it a reasonable statement? Please offer opinions at the article. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I started a conversation regarding proper indentation of LaTeX formulas at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Indentation which could use more voices to reach a consensus. Opencooper ( talk) 12:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Cyclic function has been proposed for deletion. -- Lambiam 22:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Editor did 1/2 the math equations correctly, the rest show up garbled in the text. I haven't a clue what's going on. The creating editor is rarely on Wikipedia. Could somebody figure it out. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I have created a new article titled Dixon's elliptic functions.
The phrase "have regular hexagons as repeating units" may not be the most felicitous, but it's what I've got so far.
It is an amusing and slightly edifying exercise that takes a few seconds to show that "having hexagons as repeating units" in no way conflicts with the fact that the fundamental domains that repeat can be taken to be parallelograms. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
A new article titled Mathematical model of flow processes is incredibly messy. Whoever feels like cleaning up a mess should consider this one. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking it would be good to have infoboxes for operators such as the addition, division, dot product, cross product, &c. These infoboxes would have information on commutativity, associativity, &c. What do you think?
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this question. George Makepeace ( talk) 14:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
^for exponentiation)). — crh 23 ( Talk) 18:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I wonder how come the Greek alphabet letters are not independently coded like the regular coding of Anglo-Latino alphabet? Why write <math>\alpha</math>
and not <math>α</math>
? These letters are used so much.
And the same with symbols like ∅ instead of {\empty,\emptyset,\varnothing}, ℕ instead of \N and so on.
In any way there is no consistency in many codings, like \N is but \A isn't but rather undefined.
Can someone change all this? יהודה שמחה ולדמן ( talk) 15:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
<math>≤</math>
instead of <math>\ge</math>
. The clumsiness will me moved to the software, which is anyway clumsy.<math>a</math>
to the greek letter <math>α</math>
, and from here I'm asking about <math>≤</math>
....what is happening to the article " Measure (mathematics)" (note its recent history). Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 10:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexander Kuznetsov (mathematician) has been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Kuznetsov (mathematician). — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone is going around adding {{
statistics}} to a bunch of articles in mathematics and statistics. The template is very large: when subst'ed, it takes up about 14kb, and is being added to articles with only a passing significance in statistics, like
Lp space. Two questions: (1) is it really helpful to the reader to have the entire outline of statistics in a navigation template, even on somewhat peripheral articles? (2) Do navigation boxes this large and complex really have any legitimate use in article space, outside of (say) portals, outlines, lists, and similar kinds of organizational media?
Sławomir
Biały
14:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Statistics
- In statistics, measures of central tendency and statistical dispersion, such as the mean, median, and standard deviation, are defined in terms of Lp metrics, and measures of central tendency can be characterized as solutions to variational problems.
@ Slawekb: To say that Latin squares are unrelated to statistics is to be ignorant of statistics. Latin squares are used in the design of experiments. And in fact, that is stated in the first sentence of the article. Fourier analysis is of course used in statistics because Fourier analysis is used in just about everything. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, as the documentation explains, the template is easily collapsed to one line
as is the probability distributions infobox
which is more relevant for this project. 162.250.169.162 ( talk) 11:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC) 11:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I tripped over negative-dimensional space and ideas like reduced homology and K-theory sprang to mind, when I realized that the entire article seems to be some sort of non-mathematical, pop-sci original-research effort to grapple with the contents of one specific paper on arxiv. (The other citation in the article is to an art project mounted by a mathematician, who does mention reduced homology.) The whole thing is dazed and confused, as a result. Should this WP article be expanded into some sort of pop-sci exploration of "negative dimension", like some fun blog post somewhere? Is a pop-sci review really encyclopedic? Turning it into a review of a single arxiv article seems wrong; its not really notable. I don't see how to rescue this article. Perhaps someone can prod for deletion? Or something? 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 21:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
All the mathematical formulas in the " Rodrigues Rotation Formula" article appear in very small type; I'm guessing 8 point type on my computer. The text appears normal as 10 or 12 point type. This is only a problem for some of the math articles in Wikipedia. This should be an easy fix.
68.100.252.138 ( talk) 15:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Maurice Daniel 68.100.252.138 ( talk) 15:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Templates for Discussion about the math project's talk page assessment templates - the ones that are used for quality and priority assessment. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This is currently the lead image and caption on the polygon article. As someone who last took geometry over 15 years ago, I'm not sure what a better caption (or image) would be, but (a) The wording is awkward and I'm not sure if the labels are even correct. "Open (excluding it's boundary)" presumably refers to the first image on the left. I thought an open polygon was one that's missing a side. Why would we exclude its boundary? Why would we exclude the interior of the second image? "Closed (both)"... Both what? "self-intersecting with varying densities of different regions" Huh? (b) Even if those examples are correct, are they the best ones to use in the lead image?
I also posted something similar and brought up some other concerns about the wording in the lead on the article's talkpage, but I'm looking for more input from this project as the talkpage doesn't get too much action. —PermStrump (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I just finished reformatting two mathdab pages: torsion-free and parabolic geometry. I understand the formatting, but not the math involved. I did the best I could with descriptions from the linked articles, but I know some of it isn't right. In particular, I think parabolic geometry (differential geometry) and Cartan parabolic geometry may have a lot of overlap, or might even be identical. Could someone please check those pages and straighten out the descriptions? Thanks. — Gorthian ( talk) 22:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
If you have time then please could you have a look at my recent edit to the Chinese remainder theorem article. It was reverted by a Twinkle user because "Unsourced, and the general description of the method is lacking". I added a reference and think the description is quite detailed, so reverted. This has again been reverted. Naturally, I think my edit is fine, but I would like a second opinion. Please see the article's talk page as well. — Fly by Night ( talk) 19:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello ! The biography of Luc Illusie (a French mathematician) contained several factual errors, which I corrected directly, while adding new information. But there is a paragraph which I had corrected and which has been re-entered : I think it is at the least very misleading (and not relevant), at the worst almost libellous. At the suggestion of the author of those problematic lines, I explained the problems in this paragraph at length, with references, in the Talk page, Talk:Luc Illusie, but apparently with no success. It would be nice if some of you with good mathematical background (Illusie is an algebraic geometer) can have a look on this discussion and give an opinion. I contributed usually on the French Wikipedia mostly for linguistic reasons. Thank you in advance. Cgolds ( talk) 09:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
We have no article titled Martin boundary. Is there someone adept in writing about that? Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
We are having a discussion at wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#exponent as to whether the existing definitions of the term are overlapping, redundant, or generally correct at all. For reference, we have three mathematical definitions of the word:
The primary question is whether the second sense is redundant to the first. Expert insight would be helpful and appreciated here. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I unfortunately find myself edit-warring with User:Pigsonthewing, who has been making a number of damaging edits to templates that concern this project. Earlier, he broke Template:nlab and won't let me fix it; Now, he's broken Template:Planetmath reference, with the result that it displays complete garbage. I've reverted, but I don't imagine that this will stick for long. I'm at a loss -- I've seen this kind of hostile behavior in WP far too many times, and I don't understand it's origins. I don't know how to fix it. Anyone? 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 07:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
{{PlanetMath|urlname=Aristotle|title=Aristotle}}
→
Aristotle at
PlanetMath.Yes @ Pigsonthewing: does seem to have messed things up. I've created the sandbox and testcases mentioned before. For {{Nlab|id=simplex+category|title=Simplex category}} the old Jan 2016 version rendered as
And the new version as
It is possible to add a mode=cs2 to the call the {{ cite web}} which changes the full stop to a comma which is a minor improvement but still looks wrong.
The actual motivation for using {{ cite web}} is questionable, these are external links templates not citation templates, and they are different things. I would revert all the changes back. -- Salix alba ( talk): 11:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
{{ planetmath}} and {{ planetmath reference}} are now proposed for merging at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 5. -- Salix alba ( talk): 19:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Fields Medal winning French mathematician who died on 3 September. He is up for inclusion in the recent deaths section of the main page but has been opposed because the article is a stub that does not reflect his career/research. Can anyone here help out? The combination of French sources and his subject area (dynamical systems) is intimidating. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Espresso Addict ( talk) 19:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I've rewritten the geometry article to be more in line with the changes I made to topology article a couple of years ago. I've used sources to find lists of important topics in geometry, and gathered the previous material into categories such as applications and important concepts. I've shuffled around the old material, and added new, sourced material. I welcome any further changes and refinement (for instance, I did not add polygons as important concepts). Brirush ( talk) 20:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I've wikilinked unital in Hurwitz's theorem (composition algebras). Unfortunately, this is out of my field, and I can't tell which is the correct meaning. Can anyone disambiguate this, please? -- The Anome ( talk) 12:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Eulerian coherent structure is a fairly new article that could probably use some work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes a deleted article is near the borderline between that which should be deleted and that which should be kept, and looks as if some day it could evolve into an article worth keeping. Just in case the one titled "Cyclic function" is such an instance, I've put a copy of it here. One concern is that even if the term "cyclic function" cannot be found in authoritative secondary sources, the topic rather than that particular name of the concept might still be treated in the literature. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a question at the family talk page under section the genetic overlap table that needs replies or help from a mathematician. Thanks. 92.13.128.131 ( talk) 09:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Is this article worth keeping? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if you can get more 2002 than this article, even after my recent edit: Harmonic polylogarithm. Work on it!! Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there policy or guidance on redirects? During editing, I stumbled across redlinks which could have been fixed by redirects. Below is my current list. Could someone maybe create these? (or tell me that its a bad idea?)
Thanks. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
If a topic is not worth a whole article but is mentioned in some other article, then often a redirect is approrpriate. If it _is_ worth a whole article but none exists yet and you're not going to write one, often it's a good idea to redirect it to another article that says something about the topic. Also, commonplace misspellings or misnomers should be redirected, e.g., theorum redirects to theorem. Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Someone recently broke the redirect of Wedge product to Exterior algebra. I have very mixed feelings about this. Perhaps having an article on the wedge product, only, makes room for a refactored article on the exterior algebra, which could then focus on the algebra, only (just like tensor product and tensor algebra are two different articles). But this refactoring seems like ... well, it will be long and painful, is my knee-jerk reaction. Any other knee-jerk reactions anyone care to have? 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 22:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
This article does not contain any theorem statement. It is almost an orphan: excepting the template {{ fundamental theorems}}, it has very few incoming links. I have tried to replace the poor content of this article by a redirect to isomorphism theorem, but I have been reverted. What to do with this article? More precisely, what is exactly this theorem (it could be the isomorphism theorem or the main property of duality)? Is the name fundamental theorem of linear algebra commonly used (apparently not)? Should we delete this article, merge or redirect it in another article or rename it? D.Lazard ( talk) 12:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The new article titled Numerical method has perceptible imperfections. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Recently, Myrocarcassonne ( talk · contribs) has added several sections to Lyapunov function, Lyapunov stability, and List of unsolved problems in mathematics describing an apparent breakthrough concerning the construction of Lyapunov functions, using terms like "old problem considered insurmountable by many researchers" that sounded too WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL for me to take it seriously (Update: I deleted the content as a precautionary measure). Further, the only sources for these claims are a 2014 manuscript posted on ArXiv and a self-published 2016 monograph. So, what to do with this? I'm not a mathematician, so hopefully there is someone here with knowledge on the subject. -- bender235 ( talk) 21:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Myrocarcassonne, Kmhkmh, Bender235, and David Eppstein: There have been additional posts at User_talk:Airplaneman#Lyapunov_Function. This is a content dispute that would best be discussed here, not my talk page. Airplaneman ✈ 19:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
The pasted below is my latest post on Airplaneman's talk page in the scope of our discussion on the Lyapunov Function article and my contribution to it. This is also my answer to his suggestion to continue it here.
"Dear Airplaneman,
Are you serious? You propose me to discuss the topic of Lyapunov Function with the folks
1) who are not experts on Lyapunov Function;
2) who started “their so-called discussion” with me by destroying my work and debarring me from editing. Putting it bluntly, they gagged me and after it Bender235 was intended to “force me” (This is his exact expression) to talk (What is ludicrous after silencing me, isn't it!?) and do what they want. I call this attempt of violence "the communication rape”.
These people behave like communistic or fascistic barbarians, whose prime policy has always been to intentionally destroy any bit of the knowledge challenging their ideas and prevent the information inconvenient for them from the free dissemination among the public. But it is not a free world. It is a totalitarian one in the information sphere.
This is my personal opinion about what is going on with Lyapunov Function article and my contribution to it. " Myrocarcassonne ( talk) 19:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Article of interest to this project proposed for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Bellow. Montanabw (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I think Glivenko's theorem (probability theory), a very recent creation, is the same subject as Glivenko–Cantelli theorem, but I'm not sure enough to do anything about it without checking first. Am I right? — Gorthian ( talk) 01:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
In the List of unsolved problems in mathematics I have taken the liberty of making all the number theory sections into subsections of a single number theory section, and I added "Combinatorial number theory", with just one item. Should we have a new article titled Combinatorial number theory? (Currently that redirects to a section in Number theory, but that section does not currently exist.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Dangvugiang seems to believe that one of the formulas in geodesic needs an explicit summation, despite the article's explicit statement that it is using the Einstein summation convention. I have already reverted him several times. More eyes would be appreciated. Ozob ( talk) 01:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to point out this users contributions, which seem to focus heavily on changing the math formatting of articles (sometimes in ways that are improvements, other times in ways that seem pointless). -- JBL ( talk) 13:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
If ever an article needed a "Not Technical Enough" tag, here it is: Abel elliptic functions. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello. A small question for you: I expected an "arithmetico-geometric sequence" to be a sequence of the form , but it turns out this only applies to French usage (disclaimer: I'm French), while in English the term Arithmetico-geometric sequence is already taken for something else. Fine. Why not. But then my questions are: 1° What in the world do you call sequences of the form I gave? I just can't seem to find anything to call them in English, and yet that's so simple and obvious an object that it surely must have a name! 2° Do they have a Wikipedia page yet? Compare FR:Suite arithmetico-geometrique. {{u| Gamall Wednesday Ida}} 17:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Linear recurrences: so that's where they were. I see that the fixpoint technique is dealt with in all generality there. That makes a lot of sense. I have added links to that article in the places where I'd have expected to find them. Thanks for clarifying that. {{u| Gamall Wednesday Ida}} 02:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I have created this.
Look at this section ( Dominical letter#Formula derived from Gauss's algorithm). Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
a\,\bmod\,b
which creates a little extra space . --
Salix alba (
talk):
08:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Salix alba: It seems to miss the point to say you should code it as a\,\bmod\,b. Look at this:
In the second example you see less space to the right of the plus sign. That's how it's intended to work. It is for that reason that we prescribe the following for non-TeX math notation:
\bmod is supposed to work like a binary operation symbol such as the plus sign, having some space to its left and right. To say that we have a manual that says we should manually add small spaces is to say "This thing doesn't work right, so you need to manually add small spaces to compensate for the bug." Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
a\,\bmod\,b
was a workaround to make it work. Now most people are using the MathML/SVG option it should not be necessary. --
Salix alba (
talk):
18:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Here's another bug: These two lines look identical, whereas they should look different. In other words, \mathbin doesn't work.
Might this be the very same bug? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
\mathbin
and \mathrel
. --
Salix alba (
talk):
22:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Should the definition of simple linear regression include the use of ordinary least squares (OLS) as the estimation technique, or does the term embrace non-OLS methods (e.g. least absolute deviations)? Interested editors may wish to respond at Talk:Simple linear regression#Title change. Qwfp ( talk) 08:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Why is most of the TeX code not getting rendered in this page? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The page returned to normal shortly after I posted this, but for something like a half hour it didn't work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
On the page about Geometric Series, /info/en/?search=Geometric_series, for the finite series, the formula for the r<>1 case is given, but not the case for r=1. I believe the correct sum for r=1 is
s = an
Sorry, but I don't have the skills to do the edit myself. Thanks.
Griswold62 ( talk) 13:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
See
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2016/Nov
Which other articles should link to Generalized structure tensor? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I have listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 1 an angle trisection image that Sunwukongmonkeygod ( talk · contribs) added to angle trisection. Please contribute to the discussion there. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
My first thought when I see additive function is the article corresponding to Cauchy's functional equation; I think we need more links between the articles presently at additive function, additive map, and Cauchy's functional equation. I'd like to bring the matter up here, rather than at the article talk pages, to see if any of the expert Wikipedians with an interest in mathematics can provide some input, before making a formal proposal on the article talk page(s). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to propose it formally without input from people interested in mathematics, but not necessarily mathematicians. There is considerable overlap between those articles; equivalence relation has sections pointing to equivalence class, quotient set (which redirects to equivalence class), and partition of a set. Perhaps some merger of the articles would be appropriate, if we can avoid Marxist interpretations of class. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Should Semi-major axis be moved to Elliptical axis? See Talk:Semi-major axis#Requested move 4 January 2016. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Could we get some input on this article over at AfC? Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 12:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The article
Degeneracy (mathematics) has been
proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing
{{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
14:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Cherkash seems to systematically replace s' by s's in various math articles and move them as well. Affected articles are Pappus's hexagon theorem, Pappus's area theorem, Desargues's theorem, Pappus's centroid theorem. I don't really have strong opinion on the subject although to my knowledge the old spellings were correct (and used in math literature) and I'm always a bit wary about articles getting moved from correct version to another due to (individual) taste preferences.
Crudely speaking both versions seems to be correct with various spelling and grammar guides disagreeing or simply declaring it a matter of taste. In math literature both spelling can be found as well (a Google books test on Desargues'(s) theorem for instance yielded 15,800 hits for Desargues' theorem versus 24,500 hits for Desargues's theorem).
So what are the opinions here? Everbody ok with such moves?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 12:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
See Draft:Katugampola fractional operators and Draft:Thin plate energy functional. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
When editing a Wikipedia article are mathematical algorithms "invented", or are they "discovered"? Or maybe it doesn't matter either way? -- 82.132.234.81 ( talk) 18:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Which other articles should link to Egorychev method? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
No-retraction theorem is only indirectly mentioned in " Brouwer fixed-point theorem"; no article, not even redirect, why? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 17:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Arabic numerals#Numerals and numeral systems that readers of this page might wish to join. Paul August ☎ 15:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I have proposed a change to the JC article on the JC talk page in the section titled 'Symmetric Case'. I need someone to implement it who has better editing skills than I do. Thank you,
L.Andrew Campbell (
talk)
02:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
If the new article titled Local cosine tree is worth keeping, it needs some cleanup and other work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion here about renaming the article Graph (mathematics). There appears to be consensus in favor of a new name (at least among the small number of editors who have commented), but not about whether the target should be Graph (graph theory) or Graph (discrete mathematics). Additional input is welcome. -- JBL ( talk) 15:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. Could someone take a look at Draft:Lattice Delay Networks and offer an informed opinion as to the veracity and state of the article. Please ping me if and when you do. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 12:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed an internal error
[cc7bc57d] 2015-12-17 13:38:05: Fatal exception of type "MWException"
here. Not having a \binom in a \limits subscript appears to have fixed it. I assume correct LaTex would be to use something like \substack, but in any case I am a bit worried that I get thrown an exception instead of a helpful error message. Does anybody have an idea or should I post this to WP:VPT instead? — Kusma ( t· c) 13:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Category:Benedictine mathematicians, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 04:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Re: the "incomprehensibility" problem discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-06/In the media: what would you think of putting WP:Hatnotes at the top of technical articles, along the lines of
I would find this very helpful. I often go to look up a math topic I've heard of, and wade through several paragraphs before I realize how badly unprepared I am (I'm a first-year undergraduate). Math gives very little context besides the definition; it's much easier for a nonspecialist to understand what Battle of Towton is about than Carathéodory's extension theorem. Math books list prerequisites in Chapter 0, but Wikipedia has no Chapter 0, so it's easy to get out of one's depth with no idea how to retreat. There might be OR concerns, but I think it would usually be fairly obvious. FourViolas ( talk) 22:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
For many articles simple honesty would require that one should say "an understanding of WHATEVER is needed" rather than "...is recommended". Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
A quote from the Signpost article linked in the beginning of this discussion (see "Reproducing kernel (impenetrable science)" there):
Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 21:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thoughts on
this edit to
Geodesic are welcome. I've
started a discussion on the talk page.
Sławomir
Biały
15:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this Wall-Sun-Sun article section for the existence of such primes, could be a little more balanced to mention Wall's original hypothesis of non-existence, and consequently his open question that these primes may, or may not exist after all.
References
One should not write this:
but rather this:
Likewise "lcm" should use \operatorname{lcm}, and it is horribly vulgar to use an asterisk for ordinary multiplication in a TeX-like setting. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
This section starts by saying this:
WHICH section of WHICH article?? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Please take a look at the conclusion of Zhi-Zong-Sun and Zhi-Wei-Sun's paper, pages 386+.
It states what I've stated above, although less elegantly. Why, has everyone overlooked this part of their paper?
Z. H. Sun and Z. W. Sun, Fibonacci numbers and Fermat's last theorem, Acta Arithmetica, Vol. 60, No. 4 (1992), 371-388
I suggest that we come up with an update for the article, that is balanced to reflect this previously unrecognized viewpoint, ie , where means exactly divides, . Primedivine ( talk) 18:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
EDIT The abstract example above clarifies the proof by contradiction.
The problem named as, "The non-existence of Wall–Sun–Sun primes", as shown at
OEIS. I have seen this referenced in several papers, where the original viewpoint or consensus was that they do not exist.
Primedivine (
talk)
14:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been working a lot today on the Hand-waving article (which is much broader and more general than just the maths usage, and also includes, barely, nose-following). I'm having difficulty finding a clear definition of nose-following in a RS. The best I can come up with (as I used at the Follow one's nose disambiguation page) "a mathematics publishing and pedagogical term meaning to pursue a mathematical solution by mechanistically applying one's already-understood concepts without learning or applying anything new". I'm not certain this is properly nuanced (especially since I ran into two seemingly positive uses: "the ... enlightened nose-following that mark mathematical exploration" and "they did not yet know the 'follow your nose' proof tactic which I learned in my first upper division math class in college", plus contextually neutral ones like "The thing about nose-following proofs is that they are not very interesting. They need to be taught to students, of course" and "A student needs a tremendous amount of experience before they are ready to do math by simply following their nose."), and I'd like to have a source before putting it in the article (all these come from blogs and forums). Worse, the article says nose-following is the opposite of hand-waving, but what I've been able to glean of the meaning of nose-following, the two concepts are totally tangential, and certainly not antonyms. This suggests either our article is saying something wrong, a bunch of people are wrong on the Internet (I know that's hard to believe), or I have way too little information to grok with fullness what "opposite" relationship is meant.
That maths section at the article badly needs work. After I reworked a lot of it, I discovered the entire thing was copy-pasted from a Quora post, making it both OR and COPYVIO. Maybe enough of it's been altered by subsequent edits to not be a copyvio (and the Q poster's name is very familiar, so he might be 'a Pedian who wouldn't object anyway), but it looks to me like a lot of the assertions are opinional, and one was already flagged as iffy.
Also, the term "nose proofs" sometimes hyphenated at "nose-proofs" (plus "nose-proofing", etc.) appear to be directly related and should be covered in the same section. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
History of numbers is currently almost the most vacuous article that can be imagined. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
What should become of the article titled Trillium theorem? Deletion is proposed on the ground that no theorem by that name can be found in the Civilized part of the Universe, but might it be known by some other name and otherwise worthy of inclusion? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
In case that it is simply one of those "well known but unnamed theorems" and no appropriate Russian source can be found there is also the option of moving its content to another article (like circumcircle or triangle) before deleting it.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 00:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I've added some sources but none give it a name as a theorem. I suggest moving to Incenter–excenter circle following MathWorld [1] as this at least gets two (low quality) hits in Google scholar. Spinning the article to be more about the circle and less about the theorem shouldn't be difficult. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Some general comments:
-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 03:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Suppose the article titled Giraffe began like this:
That is the level at which the article titled History of numbers currently stands. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for asking something that's not really related to Wikipedia, but here goes. I recently put on line a paper I wrote commenting on the attempt of Louis de Branges de Bourcia to prove the Riemann Hypothesis. How can I bring it to the attention of those who would be interested? Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 09:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Please offer comments at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 19:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Can we get some eyes to take a look at Draft:Extended mathematical Programming (EMP)? Comments and thoughts will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help. Onel5969 TT me 12:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This draft is stalled at AFC because regular reviewers are unable to evaluate the validity of the subject as an acceptable article topic, please help. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm currently attending this workshop which is charged with producing a white paper on how to make (or the prospects for making) progress towards a library of mathematics suited to today's digital world. As there are already a number of candidate languages in current use there are questions of who such a GDML is for, how compatible or intertranslatable the extent candidates are, whether the initial focus should be at the level of vocabulary, syntax, ambiguity (in either vocabulary or syntax), functions, concepts, or semantics, and like questions.
Are there members of WikiProject Mathematics who feel they could usefully represent the wikiproject's (or more generally Wikipedia's) attitudes towards, and opinions about, GDML's goals, prospects, methodology, etc.? Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 20:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello there. Recently I am reading matrix calculus and there is one scalar-by-matrix identity that I could not understand.
According to my understanding and nominator layout, it should be while the wiki page suggests that it should be instead. There is no such identity in the matrix cookbook (perhaps we can replace the matrix A with I in derivative #124?), so I seek your advice. Estorva ( talk) 14:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Estirva and @Tsirel: You deficiency of TeX skills is showing. Here's a comment I just left on the talk page of the article discussed here:
When one writes {\rm tr} in TeX one does not get proper spacing before and after "tr". Thus
- is coded as a {\rm tr} B, and
- is coded as a \operatorname{tr} B, and
- is coded as a \operatorname{tr} (B).
Writing \operatorname{tr} results in a certain amount of space before and after tr, and there is less space when (round brackets) follow tr than when they don't. The form {\rm tr}, on the other hand, involves no spacing conventions. The form \operatorname{tr} is standard usage and I edited accordingly.
The same thing applies to \text{tr}, which both of you used here. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Both variants,
(from propagator and history) are bad. In the first, the prime is misplaced. In the second, the dagger fails to penetrate its victim and there is an ugly gap between the i and the del operator. Does anyone know of a workaround (or even a supported feature)? YohanN7 ( talk) 10:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Here: Talk:Wave function#Revision 2016-02-08 YohanN7 ( talk) 13:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering if Spacetime triangle diagram technique should be moved either to Spacetime triangle diagram or to Spacetime triangle? (I found the article full of crude solecisms, some of which I cleaned up, and bizarrely over-complicated TeX code written by a psychotic (which probably means it was written by some software package of the kind used by people who don't know TeX code) and I cleaned up some of that too.) Ceteris paribus, I think shorter titles are better, partly because they're more likely to be found by using the search box. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The user, Ryanexler is planting a reference in various articles. He/she (most likely to be Jakob Schwichtenberg ) has done this once before (last year) and was then reverted by me. I don't feel like being this mans nemesis around here. Someone else should have a look. YohanN7 ( talk) 12:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Others did revert, but he is at it again. YohanN7 ( talk) 10:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
This proposed change in the title of an article might perhaps benefit from insights of participants in this page. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
We have a new article titled Georg Cantor's first set theory article, written largely by an expert on the history of the matter, R. J. Gray, who has published refereed papers on the topic.
I have added a "mergefrom" tag to it, which may be controversial. There is a large overlap between the two articles. The rationale for creating a separate article with a separate title is explained by R. J. Gray in this section of my user talk page.
Currently no other articles link to this new article. So that's something to work on. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The article Effect algebra was copied from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.00567v1.pdf, making it a copyright violation. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I've done some editing on this article. If it was a copyright violation earlier, it probably is not now. It didn't have a proper introductory sentence; I've added that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Recap: I am blind and a newbie, but an expert on the Jacobian Conjecture(JC). Around January 20, I proposed a change to the JC article on the talk JC page, under the title Symmetric Case. I pointed to it here, but the pointer was archived with no action. Needs a reference to two papers by the same two authors in the same year. Please help.
L.Andrew Campbell ( talk) 01:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I have created the System U article and would appreciate if somebody checked its wikiness. Also, looking at related articles, I noticed they have this WikiProject's rating template on their talk pages. I don't know what the process around these is, but this article should probably have one as well. — Matěj Grabovský ( talk) 12:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to get P-value fallacy in WP:DYK. ( User:Sunrise gets all the credit, not me.) It'd be nice to have a decent mathematics article on the Main Page. I'd appreciate it if a few stats people looked it over and/or suggested a good "hook" for it. Realistically speaking, we probably can't expect to find very many stats people among the DYK reviewers, so I'm asking here. If anyone has comments, please be bold, or leave notes on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
In this section I found only two sieve methods listed, not including the sieve of Eratosthenes about which everyone learns in elementary school, and which is in fact the only one that I know anything about. I added several more. Quite possibly the section needs more work. Maybe even subsections on different kinds of sieves? Or maybe not? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Some of you may be interested in this:
There is a Tech Talk next Monday, 29 February at 20:00 UTC (12 Noon Pacific Time) about Zotero and the mw:citoid service.
The main subject is how to extract accurate, automated bibliographic citations from websites. This talk is mostly about Zotero, which is a free and open-source citation management tool. Zotero is used on the Wikipedias through the automagic citoid service. Citoid is currently an option in the visual editor and will (eventually) be used for automated citations in the wikitext editor at some Wikipedias. Zotero is also used by many academics and researchers, and most of the information presented will be useful to people outside of Wikipedia as well.
Please share this invitation with anyone that you believe will be interested. If you have questions, then please leave a note on my talk page. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 03:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at this article. The "Gimel" hebrew letter in the images looks like a Nun rather than a Gimel. A Gimel has a foot in the lower right. Naraht ( talk) 22:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
<math>\gimel</math>
, so if it's wrong, then it's actually wrong in our TeX rendering engine, not just the article. --
Trovatore (
talk)
00:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Our list of new articles at User:Mathbot/Changes_to_mathlists includes a new article titled Modified KdV–Burgers equation. It was a total orphan, so I created one link to it in the "See also" section of the article titled Korteweg–de Vries equation. Then I decided to add it to the List of dynamical systems and differential equations topics, and I found that even " Korteweg–de Vries equation" is not listed there, and it's not immediately clear where within that list it would belong. Should the list itself get reorganized? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion here if that topic is of interest. It has been going on since Feb 26, but just wanted to make sure folks here are aware of it. Jytdog ( talk) 18:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
We now have a List of things named after Friedrich Bessel. Perhaps strangely, I found a list that was not empty but that had no internal links. I created those links. But possibly the article should be expanded. Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know where to go, so I'm posting this here. There has been another polymath project solved! Can someone add this information to the "Problem solved" section of the article please? I think it can go under the heading of "Polymath proposal problem" under "Problem solved" section. This problem was going to become a polymath project, but someone else proved it so quickly before it becoming a polymath project (with number). However, I think it is another achievement worth mentioning in the article. Due to my limited mathematics background, I don't think I'm able to write about it as well as someone else with a major in mathematics or advanced knowledge in mathematics. If not, does someone know anyone, who has a strong background in mathematics, that currently still active on Wikipedia? So that I can ask him/her out personally. Thank you! Pendragon5 ( talk) 00:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The article titled Fractional Fourier entropy begins like this:
This doesn't set up the context properly. Could someone who knows this topic improve the intro? Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Greetings. If someone has a moment, there's an article over at AfC which needs some expert advice on whether or not it's notable. Assistance would be greatly appreciated: Draft:GBT - Generalised Beam Theory. Onel5969 TT me 18:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
In the Russian Wikipedia there is a picture of Dmitry Konstantinovich Faddeev. Could someone speaking the language have that picture uploaded to Wikimedia commons (or tell me how to link the Russian version)? YohanN7 ( talk) 13:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
For now, "Successive approximation" redirects to Successive approximation ADC(!), and "Iteration" disambigs to Iterated function, and Iterative method is a piece of applied mathematics. But it seems to me that both "Successive approximation" and "Iterations" are also mathematical terms. Or not? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 18:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I have made Successive approximation into a disambiguation page. It needs further work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Look, just for fun: Article needs a re-write (toned down from: WTF is this $hit). :-) Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 18:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Continued here. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 2:48 pm, Today (UTC−5)
In this section of a talk page, two users say that the page titled Exponential function should deal only with the base-e (natural) exponential function and not other bases. Both of them seem to take the confused view that if other bases are allowed then the article is about the binary operation of exponentiation in general, as opposed to exponential functions of one variable. I agree with them that the binary operation of exponentiation should be, and is, the topic of a different article rather than this one. I wrote this brief explanation:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I have set up an RfC on this at Talk:Exponential_function#RfC: Should exponential function be about exponentiation to any base?. The explanation above is not right, the question is whether the article should be about ex like for instance Exponential function at Wolfram MathWorld, or whether it is about exponential growth and decay which is what exponential functions is general are mostly about and have the current contents moved to natural exponential function. Dmcq ( talk) 23:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
See new thread at WP:VPT#Math in wikilinks broken? — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Search recent changes, and other Inspire Campaign proposals discussing the overly technical nature of some mathematical articles. The Beta_distribution has been singled out as an article with too much technical info, indeed there is much which could be cut from that article. The diff [5] on Euler's totient function has also been brought up as a case of WP:OWN. -- Salix alba ( talk): 06:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The Pi day brigade seems to have arrived late this year. Please keep a close watch on the article
pi. There is a discussion underway at
Talk:Pi, wherein a blog post is proposed to override a peer-reviewed secondary source written by the Borwein brothers. This could merit the attention of Wikipedia editors who are familiar with editing articles on mathematics and scientific topics, as opposed to Entertainment news topics which is what we seem to do mostly nowadays.
Sławomir
Biały
19:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this effort, here, to use clade diagrams to summarize pharma business acquisitions. My take at present is that the images created are devoid of standard quantitative meaning—nothing is captured by vertical and horizontal line lengths, as far as I can tell—and so they are a misapplication of this maths/graphic presentation method. Moreover, I argue that they are misleading (presenting a time axis, but not making spacing of events proportionate to the historical time differences), much harder to maintain (consider adding entries to a std Table versus this graphic), more likely to diminish article quality (in their ambiguity of content, again, over a std Table with clear headings), and therefore practically amenable to decay as a result. I would add to this, in this esteemed maths context, that they would make those who trained us, and other purists in methodology and meaning (and Edward Tufte more generally), turn in their graves/beds. After having a look at the User page and at a couple of pages linked on that sandbox page, leave your opinion here, regarding the overall effort? Thanks for your opinion. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 01:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Another pair of doubly related articles are these. Should they be merged into the same article, maybe called Semi-minor and semi-minor axes? (Not set on title). M ∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 18:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Typography#Consequences of a lack of consensus concerning inline text style mathematical formulae. — Tentacles Talk or ✉ mailto:Tentacles 22:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Mathbot appears not to have put up any new changes in User:Mathbot/Changes to mathlists since March 23, but instead in User:Mathbot/Recent changes. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 03:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I was working through stale unedited pages in the Draft namespace and discovered several very abstract geometry creations from levels of "it exists" up to stub level quality. Several of these pages (as I've listed some examples above) had not been edited (since I came through looking at them) since 2014 in the draft namespace. I am not making any accusations regarding any individual editor or type of creation except to note that these draft title land grabs are begining to be more closely looked at if there is no positive progress on them. Does WP:Maths have any suggestions/interest in improving these to the point that they are ready to be promoted to mainspace? Hasteur ( talk) 15:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I want to remind that they are drafts; that's why they exist in the draft namespace not in the main name space. The question should be whether the topics are notable or not not the actual states of content. I agree there is no value having drafts on nobodies (since they will never become main-name space articles). The above drafts, on the other hand, have potential to become main-namespace articles. Now I explain why they were created:
More broadly, the issue seems to be the unclear nature of the draft namespace. I'm on the camp that there should be no deadline; some disagree, obviously. -- Taku ( talk) 00:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we have an article on the direct limit topology already. Your draft is about Cartesian products. Are you proposing that we should have an article about Cartesian products of direct limits? Because that's what your draft is about.
Sławomir
Biały
01:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
(I appreciate everyone's patience with me, I meant it.) Please let me ask this way. Given a set, you can always put the final topology with respect to some given family of maps to the set. In particular, you can put the final topology on the set-theoretic direct limit of a direct system and the resulting topology is called the "direct limit topology". This topology is cited as an example in the final topology article rather than a synonym. Does it make sense to have an article about this topology separate from the article final topology? In particular to discuss the issue like the above? just as we have an article on quotient topology (correction to my early post: a product topology is initial not final, that was stupid). I had assumed the answer is yes. If the other editors disagree, then of course I will respect that. -- Taku ( talk) 04:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography/Science_and_academia#guidelines_about_living_scientists-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 06:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I'm reading into this incorrectly, but how can Elliptical distributions be in the Location-scale family, when location-scale families are univariate and elliptical distributions are multivariate? I'm working through classifying the variety of probability distributions on Wikidata using d:Property:P279, so this is how I came about this question. (Basically, am I doing something wrong? :D) -- Izno ( talk) 19:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I've created a stubby new article titled Maryna Viazovska. It could probably use more work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Would everybody who can opine on this post their thoughts at this page for discussing the proposed deletion. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The following math-related terms are in our list of the 1,000 most linked disambiguation pages for April 2016. Any help in fixing links to these pages would be appreciated:
Cheers! bd2412 T 04:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems#RfC formal system for a formal RFC on whether Gödel's incompleteness theorems should espouse the viewpoint "that formal systems are entirely formal and consist of only formal content" (see RFC for full proposal), and please weigh in if you have an opinion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
In the article titled Magma (algebra) one finds this code:
But what I see is this:
The whole point of the "nowrap" template is to prevent this kind of wrapping. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
white-space: nowrap;
by way of the .nowrap
class. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
21:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)I can reproduce it with up-to-date Chrome 49.0.2623.110 (64-bit). The line break seems to happen after the arrow for me, if I change the window to a suitable width to force the break to appear. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
<i>...</i>
. -- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
21:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Please review Draft:Kundu equation. If you do not know how to perform an AFC review please simply post your assessment to the draft's talk page. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The usage and topic of surface is under discussion, see Talk:Surface -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 05:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
יהודה שמחה ולדמן ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently going around and changing every integral on Wikipedia from this:
to this:
Note: In addition to having the limits placed far above the integration sign, the thin space between the integrand and differential is replaced by a full space. Do we agree on the global application of this style decision to all of our math articles?
Sławomir
Biały
18:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
\int\limits_a^b
generally be changed to \int_a^b
? I.e. is always changed to ? —
crh 23 (
Talk)
16:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
\int_a^b
is more common than \int\limits_a^b
and would be preferable in most instances, my opinion is that going from article to article changing typographical style according to personal preference was the main problem here. If the editor in question used \int\limits_a^b
in a completely new article, it would be a little odd, but not a big problem. So my sense is that going from article to article enforcing \int_a^b
is problematic, too--it could lead to pointless edit wars. I'd be in favor of adding the preference for \int_a^b
to
MOS:MATH instead. --
Mark viking (
talk)
18:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
\limits
blindly removed whenever it occurs immediately after \int
?—
crh 23 (
Talk)
20:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
\limits
, though, so maybe changing that situation is fine.
Ozob (
talk)
12:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
\int\!\!\!\int\limits_D
to produce that. Could that happen? —
crh 23 (
Talk)
14:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
\int
for multiple integrals. —
crh 23 (
Talk)
16:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)This project is mostly physical (and advertised on wikiproject physics), but may interest some mathematicians, too. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 11:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Greetings and salutations. Draft:Dragonfly algorithm is a draft sitting at AfC which I could really use input on. Thanks in advance.
Oh, and if you're in the mood, there is a stale draft, Draft:Subdivision curve, which I also could use some help evaluating. Thanks in advance. Onel5969 TT me 13:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
https://twitter.com/physikerwelt/status/720310670512631808 -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 18:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
19:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
10:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)The beta page can be found at http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Math -- Salix alba ( talk): 23:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I think in the "Definition" section that "(the unit tangent)" and "(the unit normal)" should be interchanged. That is "(the unit tangent)" should be where "(the unit normal)" is, and "(the unit normal)" should be where "(the unit tangent)" is. MGilly9 ( talk) 09:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Could you have a look at this effort, here, to use clade diagrams to summarize pharma business acquisitions. My take at present is that the images created are devoid of standard quantitative meaning—nothing is captured by vertical and horizontal line lengths, as far as I can tell—and so they are a misapplication of this maths/graphic presentation method. Moreover, I argue that they are misleading (presenting a time axis, but not making spacing of events proportionate to the historical time differences), much harder to maintain (consider adding entries to a std Table versus this graphic), more likely to diminish article quality (in their ambiguity of content, again, over a std Table with clear headings), and therefore practically amenable to decay as a result. I would add to this, in this esteemed maths context, that they would make those who trained us, and other purists in methodology and meaning (and Edward Tufte more generally), turn in their graves/beds. After having a look at the User page and at a couple of pages linked on that sandbox page, leave your opinion here, regarding the overall effort? Thanks for your opinion. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 01:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Area of a circle#Circular Argument. I am not asking for support for either side, but for input from those with higher math education than either me or the IP.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I just reverted a change by Yonathanyeremy ( talk · contribs) and looking at their other ones I can't see anything else that I agree with. Anyone else like to have a quick check and perhaps say what on earth is happening thanks. Dmcq ( talk) 13:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
We have a short article titled cyclic function that is not in very good shape right now. In particular, can anyone understand this final sentence?:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Editors,
Let me explain this issue briefly.
An integrable generalization of the nonlinear Schroedinger equation with additional quintic nonlinerity and a nonlinear dispersive term given by
proposed in (kundu|1984) is known as the Kundu-Eckhaus equation (more details on this equation with its other aspects, applications and references can be found in my Sandbox). Eckhaus equation introduced later is a particular case of the Kundu-Eckhaus equation (with ) and therefore not the same equation as incorrectly mentioned in that Wiki page. Note that while the Eckhaus equation is linearizable, the Kundu-Eckhaus equation is reducible only to the nonlinear Schroedinger equation through the same transformation. On the other hand, the Kundu-Eckhaus equation can be derived from the Kundu equation as a particular case. Therefore IMO there may be three logical options: (1) Eckhaus equation can go as a subsection under Kundu-Eckhaus equation, (2) Kundu-Eckhaus equation can go as a subsection under Kundu equation, (3) Kundu-Eckhaus equation can go as an independent entry.
Hope to get your valuable suggestion/opinion/advice. Anjan.kundu ( talk) 06:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC) April 27, 2016
Hello Prof. Slawomir Biaty, Thank you very much for your valuable comments and advice. Hope other editors would also agree to it with more suggestions and finally the 'tag' marked now to the contribution of Kundu equation could be removed.
With best regards. Anjan.kundu ( talk) 05:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
It appears that a Dashboard.wikiedu.org course (Calculus I at Howard University) is getting active with 5 student editors working on several calculus related pages. I have just reverted two of them on Integration by substitution before I realized that this was part of a sponsored program. I believe my reverts were the correct thing to do, but I am wondering whether or not I should have been more proactive in pointing out what the problems with the edits were. There are several issues involved here that I think should be addressed by project members. I have seen this type of project several times already and in each instance the program has left messes on several pages that have had to been cleaned up by us. Is there a way to inform the program directors that while the intentions of this program may be good and noble, the direct consequence is that a lot of unnecessary cleanup work is being created for us and perhaps there are other ways to achieve their ends without over-burdening the project editors. As WP editors we do not act as referees for the material presented on the pages, we do not evaluate, nor correct – unless backed up by a reliable source. By an extension of the philosophy upon which that position is based, should we be acting as teachers of the, in this case, Howard University students? Howard U. is not paying us a salary, nor does it have any control over who we are; I think the university should be concerned about that. Any comments, suggestions, etc. Thanks. Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 04:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at
Talk:Area of a disk#RfC article title: "Area of a circle" or "Area of a disk" that would benefit from the insight of members of WPM. Please direct your comments there.
Sławomir
Biały
17:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The article titled Selection principle could probably use some work in the intro section. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been looking at the "area of a disk"/"area of a circle" article...noticed it's rated "low importance"...was wondering why...it would seem it should be the exact opposite (that is, important for Wikipedia to have a good article on such a fundamental/elementary/and widely taught topic)...it seems the articles rated highly important are often of a very advanced nature (which may be fine, but less advanced though very important articles like this are also highly important)..I went to the pages on the ranking but it appears there has been no activity over there for many years...so posted here...are these ratings irrelevant at this point and of no consequence to anything? or should they be changed/done away with because they interfere with editorial activity? 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 14:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm looking for a "free" version of the image on the last page of this PDF:
[14]. I would like to use it in the new section at
pi, with a caption about Queen Dido and the isoperimetric problem. Does anyone know how we might find such a thing? (I was going to add: short of flying to Rome, but the irony is I actually will be in Rome. Still, let's not...)
Sławomir
Biały
22:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Please see: [ [15]]
73.4.14.51 ( talk) 14:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, so I don't know where the best place to post this is. I have this RFC that is highly applicable to this WikiProject that should be advertised here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungryce ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Could I get some more eyes on our WP:BLP article on Japanese graph theorist Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi, please? Takahiro4 has been making a mess of it. It's not the only recent problem involving this editor; see User talk:David Eppstein#kawarabayashi article (or Takahiro4's contributions) for context. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Disruption continues at
pi. At some point, I think ANI is called for. I am convinced that the editor is just trolling. On the talk page, he requested a section on Fourier series, and now is intent on adding templates against policy. I think it's time this editor be blocked. He is wasting the time of productive editors.
Sławomir
Biały
15:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Just as one writes [[cat]]s so that the reader sees "cats" and clicks on it and sees the article titled "cat", someone typed [[arithmetic of quadratic form]]s in an article. That doesn't make sense and I changed it to [[arithmetic of quadratic forms]]. However, we currently have no article titled Arithmetic of quadratic forms. Should we? And can someone here start the article? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
It was pointed out to me that the graph File:Champernowne_constant_logscale.svg used in Champernowne constant has a mistake: the dots corresponding to the 41-st digit is out of place (it should be at height 10^{2504}. Not sure how that happened! :/ Anyway, at the moment I don't have access to Maple, so it would be nice if someone could re-do the graph (the code should be just a couple of lines, one could also take the data from here). Notice that being the misplaced point much bigger than in the graph, this means that the graph is going to be really flat, I guess it's OK, but another option is to leave that point out of the graph (mentioning it in the caption), or to go for a double logarithmic scale.-- Sandrobt ( talk) 23:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
We have a new article titled Chow group of a stack. In the first sentence, it links to Chow group, which redirects to Chow ring. Should it be left that way, or should Chow group perhaps be a disambiguation page, or should we leave Chow group intact as a redirect while also putting a hatnote atop Chow ring telling the reader that Chow group of a stack exists, or should something else be done? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The article List of Laplace transforms was recently forked out of Laplace transform. Is this really necessary and helpful to likely readers of Laplace transform? Please comment at Talk:Laplace transform#List of Laplace transforms. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 12:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The page titled function theory redirected to function (mathematics). I had followed a link to that name from a new biographical article on a mathematician, in which I suspected the term has the first sense listed below. So I changed it to a disambiguation page, as follows:
See:
- Complex analysis, the study of holomorphic functions of a complex variable. Especially in works written during the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, the term function theory often has this sense.
- Function (mathematics)
- This disambiguation page lists mathematics articles associated with the same title.
Quite possibly this could benefit from more eyeballs. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there any that should be moved to the main space? Grogamoco ( talk) 12:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
You might want to weigh in on what to do, here. Uncle G ( talk) 21:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Could someone who knows more about these things have a look at this? Obviously this title is incorrect... -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there any content worth saving in Matrix decomposition into clans? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
John von Neumann is being reviewed as a potential Good Article. Please participate in the review at Talk:John von Neumann/GA1. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I occasionally see the phrase "advanced calculus". Sometimes it seems to mean introductory real analysis (e.g., sequences, continuity, what distinguishes the reals from the rationals) and sometimes it seems to mean topics in calculus that are usually introduced later rather than earlier in a sequence of calculus courses (e.g., trig substitution, multivariate calculus). Right now, Advanced calculus is a red link. What should we do with it? My first thought is to redirect it to Real analysis. — Kodiologist ( t) 15:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I once taught a course called "advanced calculus for engineers", consisting of topics needed as prerequistes to a fluid dynamics course, and about half of it was complex analysis, so "real analysis" might not be a perfect target for a redirect. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm having a disagreement with an anonymous editor over the preferred level of technicality and redundancy in the lead section and lead sentence of Garden of Eden (cellular automaton). Third opinions welcome; see article history for alternative versions and Talk:Garden of Eden (cellular automaton) for discussion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
This has now progressed to an RfC. -- JBL ( talk) 14:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I wonder about the pertinence of the following article: Gonit Sora. I just removed a link which didn't add something to Évariste Galois. I wonder if it is not kind of spam. Xavier Combelle ( talk) 11:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The article titled Durand–Kerner method begins like this:
In numerical analysis, the Durand–Kerner method, established 1960–66 and named after E. Durand and Immo Kerner, also called the method of Weierstrass, established 1859–91 and named after Karl Weierstrass, is a root-finding algorithm for solving polynomial equations. In other words, the method can be used to solve numerically the equation
- ƒ(x) = 0
where ƒ is a given polynomial, which can be taken to be scaled so that the leading coefficient is 1.
What in the world does "established" mean? The method was "established 1960–66", but when known by a different name it was "established 1859–91. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The move to make the client side SVG rendering the default is now live on the English Wikipedia. This is task T131177 billed as "MathML now the default" but I don't think MathML is actually used even on firefox.
I'm currently getting lots of bugs when editing. The only way I can resolve these is to switch my preference to PNG mode save my preferences. Then you can switch the preference back to "MathML with SVG or PNG fallback" mode and things work fine again.-- Salix alba ( talk): 21:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
If anyone using Firefox wants to get real MathML back again you can reenable the MathML with a bit of CSS
.mwe-math-fallback-image-inline {
display: none !important;
}
.mwe-math-mathml-a11y {
display:inherit;
position: inherit;
clip:inherit;
width:inherit;
height:inherit;
opacity:inherit
}
Add this to your Special:MyPage/vector.css and the MathML will reappear.-- Salix alba ( talk): 16:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
1599 = 650×2 + 299
650 = 299×2 + 52
299 = 52×5 + 39
52 = 39×1 + 13
39 = 13×3 + 0
Algorithm#Euclid.E2.80.99s_algorithm
This graphic shows 650 subtracted from 1599 twice to leave a remainder of 299.
It does not show 299 subtracted twice from 650 to get 52.
It shows 52 subtracted five times from 299 to get 39.
It does not show 39 subtracted from 52 to get 13.
Shouldn't those omissions be remedied?
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there one? I see a few scattered refs pointing to various math questions posed in this journal (and the companion/offshoot Mathematical Questions with Their Solutions). The latest information I can find is a 1992 article about these journals ( doi:10.1016/0315-0860(92)90057-I) saying there was at most an index published within a few certain volumes. DMacks ( talk) 18:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
An article of possible interest to others here-- Egomath, a mathematical search engine for Wikipedia--has been proposed for deletion. -- Mark viking ( talk) 18:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
If anyone knows anything about the Milne-Thompson method for finding an analytic function, such as (1) whether the article ought to exist, or (2) what more it should say, or (3) references to cite, etc., then there it is. (I found it badly in need of copy-editing and did some of that, but probably more of that can be done.) Note: "Milne-Thompson" is a hyphenated name of one person, _not_ two names; hence it is properly a hyphen rather than an en-dash. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Mathbot is going to break soon, because of changes to the API. The bot owner doesn't seem to edit very often. If anyone is interested in this, please see the latest discussion at WP:BOTN. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 01:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Redzemp insists on replacing "sphere" by "perfect sphere" in the mathematics article spheroid. My position is that this is meaningless verbosity, like talking about "wet water". Please discuss at Talk:Spheroid if you have an opinion on this. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I've found a number of very brief articles on families of polynomials
and probably a few more. They are all very brief, barely more than just references, and don't even have a definitions instead they have empty formulas which are causing parsing error. I'm not sure if they are notable enough and I've prodded the first. -- Salix alba ( talk): 16:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
There is now an AFD on the subject Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dual q-Hahn polynomials (2nd nomination).-- Salix alba ( talk): 15:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
There is some discussion at Talk:Integral on whether the standard intuitive idea that the Lebesgue integral proceeds by "partitioning the range" of a function is indeed correct and helpful to the reader. I am unclear what the specific objection to this content is, but I think it would benefit from a third opinion. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 10:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
In the Template:Areas of mathematics, the "Divisions" are listed as: Pure, Applied, Discrete, Computational, Meta-, and Recreational. I am not sure this is helpful or accurate. For instance, it elevates Recreational mathematics to one of 6 presumptively equal divisions of the whole field of mathematics–an interesting but possibly unbalanced characterization. Below is WP's assessment of the six associated "division summary" articles along with my comments.
division | Wikipedia's rating | my assessment |
---|---|---|
Pure mathematics | B Class Top Importance | well written |
Applied mathematics | B Class Top Importance | well written |
Discrete mathematics | B Class Top Importance | well written but overlaps the other so-called divisions |
Computational mathematics | unrated | needs a lot of work; more a list than the summary of a division |
Meta-mathematics | C Class Top Importance | fairly well written but needs more work |
Recreational mathematics | Start Class Low Importance | not well organized or written–but should be Medium importance |
I would eventually like to bring a little more consistency to all of these articles. Are they really a fair overview of all of mathematics? I am not qualified to say. I had a brief discussion about all this with WP editor and mathematician Bill Cherowitzo who said:
I am particularly interested in improving the article Recreational mathematics and would welcome some collaboration.-- Toploftical ( talk) 17:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Everybody should have a look at Template talk:Areas of mathematics. There are some good suggestions there. Other people have been troubled by the current contents of the template. As a temporary experiment, I am going to demote Recreational Mathematics to one of the "areas". Whatever it is, it is not one of the major divisions of math.-- Toploftical ( talk) 17:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
There now a new tracking category Category:Pages with math errors which list all pages which have a mathematical syntax error in their formula. It might be worth having an occasional glance at. I think this relates to T49037. For many pages the errors can be fixed by simply doing a WP:PURGE on the page. -- Salix alba ( talk): 21:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
SPA Drriemann ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding references to Adrian Dudek to various number theory articles. These appear to be primary sources, rather than secondary sources, and some are self-published (on arxiv). Are any worth keeping? Sławomir Biały ( talk) 14:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
A new article titled Universal trinity bears the "mathematical logic" category tag. It looks like either an attempt to do theology via mathematical logic or a use of mathematical logic as a metaphor in theology. I suspect it constitutes "original research" as defined by WP:OR. I have proposed its deletion and notified its creator. If the creator of the article deletes the "prod" tag, I'll take it to AfD unless someone beats me to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
The juxtaposition of words "universal trinity" appears in that source, but it does not correspond to the article that you wrote. If you want to write an article based on secondary sources, then nothing is stopping you from doing that. That article may or may not be deleted, depending on whether it conforms to our policies and guidelines. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 20:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
-- John Cummings ( talk) 14:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
There are four articles that link to the WP:DAB page characteristic equation, and I suspect that only this project's participants will be able to correctly disambiguate them. The four articles are:
Disambiguation has been needed for two and a half years. Would anyone here like to tackle these? We at WP:DPL would be most grateful. — Gorthian ( talk) 17:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm having a disagreement with an editor over the new article continuum expression of the first law of thermodynamics. This seems like a reasonable equation to have covered somewhere on Wikipedia. I've checked the citation. An editor with apparently no knowledge of the subject, and also apparently someone unable to give a clear reason, is insistently replacing this new article with a redirect to first law of thermodynamics, where the expression in continuum mechanics is not given. I'm hardly an expert on continuum mechanics, but this does seem like something worth having an article on, and a stub seems like a good start. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 00:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a requested move going on at Talk:Root-finding algorithm#Requested move 22 June 2016 that may be of interest to members of this project. Jenks24 ( talk) 04:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linear number. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
In the article titled First law of thermodynamics (fluid mechanics), one finds these words near the beginning:
Just below that, I find this:
Then the word "where:" followed by this:
All but two of the instances of displayed TeX in the article just say "Failed to parse", followed by the TeX code.
But when I log out, the are rendered normally.
What's going on and how can the problem be fixed? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
A new biographical article about a Russian mathematician noted for his work on group theory and linear inequalities. The article could use some help fleshing out some detail of his contributions to the subject. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 11:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
One could set this as <math> \Sigma_1^1 </math> and along with it tolerate the resulting mismatches in font sizes and the fact that the appearance of varies with user-preference settings and browsers, but if I want to go with the first notation above, is there a way to get better vertical alignment of the subscript and the superscript? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see Tau (constant), a new article that looks a bit iffy. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 04:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Since MathML has become default and some bugs have been fixed, most of my resistance towards using Tex inline is gone. (PNG displayed inline Tex looked aWful inline.) What are the general feelings about recommending Tex for all math from now on? Does inline MathML display well on most (all?) devices? YohanN7 ( talk) 12:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Does the article Parabolic partial differential equation look like it is complete? If not could someone make some notes on its talk page about what it needs? (Thre is actually a comment there about it needing something but doesn't say what and is from 2007.) Thank you. RJFJR ( talk) 01:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be an important thing missing in this mathematics article. I invite to please see Talk:Möbius energy. Mr. Barris ( talk) 17:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Did I encounter a new way to traverse binary trees or is this method mentioned on some existing page? Jidanni ( talk) 15:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Could do with an additional pair of eyes the recent edits to Ellipse. See also my talk page for a discussion on it.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 14:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
60.231.179.112 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is (helpfully) tagging dead links in math articles. In the process of doing that, however, they are also (less helpfully) replacing links to sections of articles with links to redirects. For example, this edit replaces a perfectly reasonable piped link with a link to a cryptic redirect. This edit replaces unambiguous links with redirects like coordinate chart that at least have the potential for ambiguity. WP:NOTBROKEN seems to urge against going the other way, replacing redirects with direct links. I would think that this would cut both ways. Anyway, I have reverted a few of the more questionable edits, but more eyes might be warranted. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit to Dirac delta function. There is an editor who insists on it at Talk:Dirac delta function/Archive 1#Can we rename it to 'Dirac delta distribution' ?. Please comment there. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Category:Science technology engineering and mathematics, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Ottawahitech ( talk) 09:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)please ping me
I'd like to undo a merge that was done some time ago of the page Teichmüller modular group into the page mapping class group. The former is a special case of the latter but it is of enough interest to deserve its own page (in fact, in geometric group theory the name "mapping class group" is reserved by default to that of a surface). An informative analogy is to compare the situation to the similar one between braid groups and Artin groups.
One of the reasons advanced for the merger was that "In fact, Teichmueller modular group is not heard among experts as mapping class group", which is a bit dubious (typing this term in Google yields enough results, and this is definitely a terminology I've heard people in the subject use, though not as frequently as "mapping class group"), but a better name for the page might be "Mapping class group of a surface".
I'm mostly asking this because I've been revising the page on Teichmüller space and created a page on the curve complex and both topics are heavily related to the mapping class group, so I'd like to have a decent page on the latter. jraimbau ( talk) 10:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
A proposal appeared:
Hope this is a right place for the message. If it isn't, feel free to move this info elsewhere. -- CiaPan ( talk) 20:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request services just notified me about a RFC at Talk:Content (measure theory) about how it relates to a pre-measure. I know nothing on the subject, so I hope someone more knowledgable than me could respond. -- Salix alba ( talk): 06:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Last night I wrote out the derivation of and . The formatting of the notation (in particular the spacing) doesn't look the prettiest and I may have missed a few details, so I'd like someone else to take a look as well.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
\,
, for example:
\big
versions:
\tfrac
:
The article
Chinese remainder theorem has a section
§ Dedekind's theorem, which is about "Dedekind's Theorem on the Linear Independence of Characters"
. I do not know this theorem, and the section does not provide any source or link. Moreover, the given proof does not involve the Chinese remainder theorem, but its generalization to arbitrary rings, which, as far as I know, is generally not known under this name.
Thus this article is not the right place for this Dedekind's theorem. Should this section be simply deleted, or moved elsewhere (where?) D.Lazard ( talk) 09:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Set builder notation has languished for some time in a strange state. Lately a couple users, including me, have been making efforts to improve it. Please feel free to come help bring it up to a nice state, and to make sure that the article has the right POV overall. Any references to undergraduate or graduate level books that define the notation in detail would be very welcome. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I have recently read the page on the notion of maximal torus. This article deals only with tori in compact Lie groups. Though the case of compact Lie groups should be discussed in this context, I see no reason why the article should be restricted to it. In fact I see a few arguments in favor of the opposite stance :
In addition, I think the article should be significantly rewritten to include tori in semisimple algebraic groups over arbitrary fields (which are quite important for the structure theory of these groups and also for the geometry associated to them).
To sum up, I think the Lie theory sections on Wikipedia would benefit from a reorganisation of the topics related to algebraic tori. In my opinion there should be three articles on the subject:
I'd be happy to do this re-organising myself (this might take some time) but since this would be a fairly big change for the articles in question, if anybody is interested in Lie theory and algebraic groups and likes the articles as they are I'd be happy to discuss with them other ways to incorporate what I think is needed. jraimbau ( talk) 17:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Our article about Sharkovskii's theorem spells Sharkovskii's name one way, but our article about Oleksandr Mykolaiovych Sharkovsky spells his name differently. I just fixed the first article so that it used only one spelling instead of two, and in the course of doing that I got very confused about which redirects where going where. It would be less confusing if we were able to adopt a single spelling throughout.
I tried to find out which spelling was preferred, but both spellings seem to be common. The original Ukrainian spelling is “Шарко́вський”. I am not sure how to proceed here. Probably doing nothing is acceptable, but I thought I would bring it up. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 14:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
There is also disagreement about how to transliterate “Миколайович”: All of “Mikolaiovich”, “Mykolaiovich”, and “Mykolaiovych” appear. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 14:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Some people spell the name beginning with an ‘S’ instead of ‘Sh’, but I think this is clearly wrong. We should have redirects from these spellings, but should not use them in articles. — Mark Dominus ( talk) 15:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The article Musean hypernumber has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Nickanc (
talk)
13:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
User:174.3.155.181 vastly expanded Content (measure theory). User:Kusma reverted that edit citing where it was incorrect. User:Mark viking seemed to further explain the problems with 174.3.155.181's edit in talk. A week later 174.3.155.181's sock-puppet account reverted it all back again. I have reverted that last edit since it wasn't kosher re: fabricating support for an edit via sock-puppetry and putting on a charade of being someone else. I have no idea if its a valid good-faith edit mathematically speaking, somebody in this project should probably look it all over. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 14:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It concerns the categorizing of Mathematicians by city. The discussion can be found here [25]. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I thought that maybe the articles Tacito Augusto Farias and Douglas Smigly should be deleted for lack of notability. The second one is just 18 years old undergraduate student and the user who created it here also seems to be doing cross-wiki mass creation... TunksunT ( talk) 23:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion on whether to delete Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Basic theorems of algebraic K-theory. Ozob ( talk) 01:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
An article Rassias' conjecture was created some time ago, possibly by Rassias himself, as something of a promotional piece. It has been carefully sourced and I feel that is does meet WP:GNG and so I have been editing it recently to improve its quality. Some fresh eyes would probably help improve the article further.
CRGreathouse ( t | c) 04:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
In the example at the top of the almost integer article, there is a formula which appears truncated to me. <math>\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1}{30}(61421-23\sqrt{5831385})} </math> appears to me with the integer 58313 instead of 5831385 under the square root - in other words, the expression is truncated. Any idea why this is or how to fix it? The illustration of the golden rectangle near the top of the golden ratio article also has a truncated formula. EdChem ( talk) 10:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Anyone want to take a crack as to whether this Draft should be moved to mainspace? Naraht ( talk) 18:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
There are four articles linking to the DAB page Pushforward (or to redirects to it); those links need to be disambiguated. Several of us at WP:DPL are scratching our heads over what to do with them. If anyone here is willing to tackle them, we'd be most grateful.
The articles are:
Many thanks for your attention! — Gorthian ( talk) 07:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Under "Karamata's characterization theorem", β need not be non negative, see Theorem 1.4.1 of Bingham, Goldie, Teugels. Accordingly, ρ can also be negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.141.176.1 ( talk) 11:23, 4 August 2016
I posted a question in over at the measurable function talk page some time ago. Is there any sense to it? YohanN7 ( talk) 11:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Article needs attention from an expert in algebraic topology. I posted a set of questions and objections on its talk page: Talk:Torsion coefficient (topology) 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 20:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Coming from a programming background, and not having much formal math schooling since high school, I find it difficult to translate the abstract mathematical notation into a language I can actually programmatically calculate. I would hazard a guess that I am not alone in this regard, although this is a bit anecdotal. Therefore, it would be awesome if a Wikiproject was started that had programmatic examples, in addition to the more abstract ones written in mathematical notation. It might even be possible to have this translation be automatic (sympy.org?). I think it would be much easier to learn complex mathematics if it was taught using python rather than Greek. -- Aaron E-J ( talk) 18:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
This article, which is being translated from ru:Миварный подход, may be of interest. JohnCD ( talk) 09:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Mean value problem is an article about a problem posed by Stephen Smale. I needs work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Binary function (i.e. a bivariate function, not a function with binary variables or values) has been proposed for deletion. It's been a problem article (e.g. no sources) for years, but maybe someone wants to take the effort to save it? — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I've created a severely stubby new article title Convolution quotient. Clearly it needs work, but I'm done with it at least until morning. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Two tags have been added to the article, apparently based on the description "a great name in the theory of inequality" based on this source. Is the source sufficient for the claim? Is it a reasonable statement? Please offer opinions at the article. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I started a conversation regarding proper indentation of LaTeX formulas at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Indentation which could use more voices to reach a consensus. Opencooper ( talk) 12:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Cyclic function has been proposed for deletion. -- Lambiam 22:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Editor did 1/2 the math equations correctly, the rest show up garbled in the text. I haven't a clue what's going on. The creating editor is rarely on Wikipedia. Could somebody figure it out. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I have created a new article titled Dixon's elliptic functions.
The phrase "have regular hexagons as repeating units" may not be the most felicitous, but it's what I've got so far.
It is an amusing and slightly edifying exercise that takes a few seconds to show that "having hexagons as repeating units" in no way conflicts with the fact that the fundamental domains that repeat can be taken to be parallelograms. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
A new article titled Mathematical model of flow processes is incredibly messy. Whoever feels like cleaning up a mess should consider this one. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking it would be good to have infoboxes for operators such as the addition, division, dot product, cross product, &c. These infoboxes would have information on commutativity, associativity, &c. What do you think?
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this question. George Makepeace ( talk) 14:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
^for exponentiation)). — crh 23 ( Talk) 18:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I wonder how come the Greek alphabet letters are not independently coded like the regular coding of Anglo-Latino alphabet? Why write <math>\alpha</math>
and not <math>α</math>
? These letters are used so much.
And the same with symbols like ∅ instead of {\empty,\emptyset,\varnothing}, ℕ instead of \N and so on.
In any way there is no consistency in many codings, like \N is but \A isn't but rather undefined.
Can someone change all this? יהודה שמחה ולדמן ( talk) 15:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
<math>≤</math>
instead of <math>\ge</math>
. The clumsiness will me moved to the software, which is anyway clumsy.<math>a</math>
to the greek letter <math>α</math>
, and from here I'm asking about <math>≤</math>
....what is happening to the article " Measure (mathematics)" (note its recent history). Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 10:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexander Kuznetsov (mathematician) has been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Kuznetsov (mathematician). — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Someone is going around adding {{
statistics}} to a bunch of articles in mathematics and statistics. The template is very large: when subst'ed, it takes up about 14kb, and is being added to articles with only a passing significance in statistics, like
Lp space. Two questions: (1) is it really helpful to the reader to have the entire outline of statistics in a navigation template, even on somewhat peripheral articles? (2) Do navigation boxes this large and complex really have any legitimate use in article space, outside of (say) portals, outlines, lists, and similar kinds of organizational media?
Sławomir
Biały
14:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Statistics
- In statistics, measures of central tendency and statistical dispersion, such as the mean, median, and standard deviation, are defined in terms of Lp metrics, and measures of central tendency can be characterized as solutions to variational problems.
@ Slawekb: To say that Latin squares are unrelated to statistics is to be ignorant of statistics. Latin squares are used in the design of experiments. And in fact, that is stated in the first sentence of the article. Fourier analysis is of course used in statistics because Fourier analysis is used in just about everything. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, as the documentation explains, the template is easily collapsed to one line
as is the probability distributions infobox
which is more relevant for this project. 162.250.169.162 ( talk) 11:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC) 11:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I tripped over negative-dimensional space and ideas like reduced homology and K-theory sprang to mind, when I realized that the entire article seems to be some sort of non-mathematical, pop-sci original-research effort to grapple with the contents of one specific paper on arxiv. (The other citation in the article is to an art project mounted by a mathematician, who does mention reduced homology.) The whole thing is dazed and confused, as a result. Should this WP article be expanded into some sort of pop-sci exploration of "negative dimension", like some fun blog post somewhere? Is a pop-sci review really encyclopedic? Turning it into a review of a single arxiv article seems wrong; its not really notable. I don't see how to rescue this article. Perhaps someone can prod for deletion? Or something? 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 21:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
All the mathematical formulas in the " Rodrigues Rotation Formula" article appear in very small type; I'm guessing 8 point type on my computer. The text appears normal as 10 or 12 point type. This is only a problem for some of the math articles in Wikipedia. This should be an easy fix.
68.100.252.138 ( talk) 15:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Maurice Daniel 68.100.252.138 ( talk) 15:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Templates for Discussion about the math project's talk page assessment templates - the ones that are used for quality and priority assessment. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This is currently the lead image and caption on the polygon article. As someone who last took geometry over 15 years ago, I'm not sure what a better caption (or image) would be, but (a) The wording is awkward and I'm not sure if the labels are even correct. "Open (excluding it's boundary)" presumably refers to the first image on the left. I thought an open polygon was one that's missing a side. Why would we exclude its boundary? Why would we exclude the interior of the second image? "Closed (both)"... Both what? "self-intersecting with varying densities of different regions" Huh? (b) Even if those examples are correct, are they the best ones to use in the lead image?
I also posted something similar and brought up some other concerns about the wording in the lead on the article's talkpage, but I'm looking for more input from this project as the talkpage doesn't get too much action. —PermStrump (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I just finished reformatting two mathdab pages: torsion-free and parabolic geometry. I understand the formatting, but not the math involved. I did the best I could with descriptions from the linked articles, but I know some of it isn't right. In particular, I think parabolic geometry (differential geometry) and Cartan parabolic geometry may have a lot of overlap, or might even be identical. Could someone please check those pages and straighten out the descriptions? Thanks. — Gorthian ( talk) 22:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
If you have time then please could you have a look at my recent edit to the Chinese remainder theorem article. It was reverted by a Twinkle user because "Unsourced, and the general description of the method is lacking". I added a reference and think the description is quite detailed, so reverted. This has again been reverted. Naturally, I think my edit is fine, but I would like a second opinion. Please see the article's talk page as well. — Fly by Night ( talk) 19:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello ! The biography of Luc Illusie (a French mathematician) contained several factual errors, which I corrected directly, while adding new information. But there is a paragraph which I had corrected and which has been re-entered : I think it is at the least very misleading (and not relevant), at the worst almost libellous. At the suggestion of the author of those problematic lines, I explained the problems in this paragraph at length, with references, in the Talk page, Talk:Luc Illusie, but apparently with no success. It would be nice if some of you with good mathematical background (Illusie is an algebraic geometer) can have a look on this discussion and give an opinion. I contributed usually on the French Wikipedia mostly for linguistic reasons. Thank you in advance. Cgolds ( talk) 09:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
We have no article titled Martin boundary. Is there someone adept in writing about that? Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
We are having a discussion at wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#exponent as to whether the existing definitions of the term are overlapping, redundant, or generally correct at all. For reference, we have three mathematical definitions of the word:
The primary question is whether the second sense is redundant to the first. Expert insight would be helpful and appreciated here. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I unfortunately find myself edit-warring with User:Pigsonthewing, who has been making a number of damaging edits to templates that concern this project. Earlier, he broke Template:nlab and won't let me fix it; Now, he's broken Template:Planetmath reference, with the result that it displays complete garbage. I've reverted, but I don't imagine that this will stick for long. I'm at a loss -- I've seen this kind of hostile behavior in WP far too many times, and I don't understand it's origins. I don't know how to fix it. Anyone? 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 07:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
{{PlanetMath|urlname=Aristotle|title=Aristotle}}
→
Aristotle at
PlanetMath.Yes @ Pigsonthewing: does seem to have messed things up. I've created the sandbox and testcases mentioned before. For {{Nlab|id=simplex+category|title=Simplex category}} the old Jan 2016 version rendered as
And the new version as
It is possible to add a mode=cs2 to the call the {{ cite web}} which changes the full stop to a comma which is a minor improvement but still looks wrong.
The actual motivation for using {{ cite web}} is questionable, these are external links templates not citation templates, and they are different things. I would revert all the changes back. -- Salix alba ( talk): 11:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
{{ planetmath}} and {{ planetmath reference}} are now proposed for merging at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 5. -- Salix alba ( talk): 19:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Fields Medal winning French mathematician who died on 3 September. He is up for inclusion in the recent deaths section of the main page but has been opposed because the article is a stub that does not reflect his career/research. Can anyone here help out? The combination of French sources and his subject area (dynamical systems) is intimidating. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Espresso Addict ( talk) 19:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I've rewritten the geometry article to be more in line with the changes I made to topology article a couple of years ago. I've used sources to find lists of important topics in geometry, and gathered the previous material into categories such as applications and important concepts. I've shuffled around the old material, and added new, sourced material. I welcome any further changes and refinement (for instance, I did not add polygons as important concepts). Brirush ( talk) 20:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I've wikilinked unital in Hurwitz's theorem (composition algebras). Unfortunately, this is out of my field, and I can't tell which is the correct meaning. Can anyone disambiguate this, please? -- The Anome ( talk) 12:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Eulerian coherent structure is a fairly new article that could probably use some work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes a deleted article is near the borderline between that which should be deleted and that which should be kept, and looks as if some day it could evolve into an article worth keeping. Just in case the one titled "Cyclic function" is such an instance, I've put a copy of it here. One concern is that even if the term "cyclic function" cannot be found in authoritative secondary sources, the topic rather than that particular name of the concept might still be treated in the literature. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a question at the family talk page under section the genetic overlap table that needs replies or help from a mathematician. Thanks. 92.13.128.131 ( talk) 09:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Is this article worth keeping? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if you can get more 2002 than this article, even after my recent edit: Harmonic polylogarithm. Work on it!! Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there policy or guidance on redirects? During editing, I stumbled across redlinks which could have been fixed by redirects. Below is my current list. Could someone maybe create these? (or tell me that its a bad idea?)
Thanks. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
If a topic is not worth a whole article but is mentioned in some other article, then often a redirect is approrpriate. If it _is_ worth a whole article but none exists yet and you're not going to write one, often it's a good idea to redirect it to another article that says something about the topic. Also, commonplace misspellings or misnomers should be redirected, e.g., theorum redirects to theorem. Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Someone recently broke the redirect of Wedge product to Exterior algebra. I have very mixed feelings about this. Perhaps having an article on the wedge product, only, makes room for a refactored article on the exterior algebra, which could then focus on the algebra, only (just like tensor product and tensor algebra are two different articles). But this refactoring seems like ... well, it will be long and painful, is my knee-jerk reaction. Any other knee-jerk reactions anyone care to have? 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 22:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
This article does not contain any theorem statement. It is almost an orphan: excepting the template {{ fundamental theorems}}, it has very few incoming links. I have tried to replace the poor content of this article by a redirect to isomorphism theorem, but I have been reverted. What to do with this article? More precisely, what is exactly this theorem (it could be the isomorphism theorem or the main property of duality)? Is the name fundamental theorem of linear algebra commonly used (apparently not)? Should we delete this article, merge or redirect it in another article or rename it? D.Lazard ( talk) 12:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The new article titled Numerical method has perceptible imperfections. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Recently, Myrocarcassonne ( talk · contribs) has added several sections to Lyapunov function, Lyapunov stability, and List of unsolved problems in mathematics describing an apparent breakthrough concerning the construction of Lyapunov functions, using terms like "old problem considered insurmountable by many researchers" that sounded too WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL for me to take it seriously (Update: I deleted the content as a precautionary measure). Further, the only sources for these claims are a 2014 manuscript posted on ArXiv and a self-published 2016 monograph. So, what to do with this? I'm not a mathematician, so hopefully there is someone here with knowledge on the subject. -- bender235 ( talk) 21:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Myrocarcassonne, Kmhkmh, Bender235, and David Eppstein: There have been additional posts at User_talk:Airplaneman#Lyapunov_Function. This is a content dispute that would best be discussed here, not my talk page. Airplaneman ✈ 19:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians,
The pasted below is my latest post on Airplaneman's talk page in the scope of our discussion on the Lyapunov Function article and my contribution to it. This is also my answer to his suggestion to continue it here.
"Dear Airplaneman,
Are you serious? You propose me to discuss the topic of Lyapunov Function with the folks
1) who are not experts on Lyapunov Function;
2) who started “their so-called discussion” with me by destroying my work and debarring me from editing. Putting it bluntly, they gagged me and after it Bender235 was intended to “force me” (This is his exact expression) to talk (What is ludicrous after silencing me, isn't it!?) and do what they want. I call this attempt of violence "the communication rape”.
These people behave like communistic or fascistic barbarians, whose prime policy has always been to intentionally destroy any bit of the knowledge challenging their ideas and prevent the information inconvenient for them from the free dissemination among the public. But it is not a free world. It is a totalitarian one in the information sphere.
This is my personal opinion about what is going on with Lyapunov Function article and my contribution to it. " Myrocarcassonne ( talk) 19:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Article of interest to this project proposed for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Bellow. Montanabw (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I think Glivenko's theorem (probability theory), a very recent creation, is the same subject as Glivenko–Cantelli theorem, but I'm not sure enough to do anything about it without checking first. Am I right? — Gorthian ( talk) 01:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
In the List of unsolved problems in mathematics I have taken the liberty of making all the number theory sections into subsections of a single number theory section, and I added "Combinatorial number theory", with just one item. Should we have a new article titled Combinatorial number theory? (Currently that redirects to a section in Number theory, but that section does not currently exist.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Dangvugiang seems to believe that one of the formulas in geodesic needs an explicit summation, despite the article's explicit statement that it is using the Einstein summation convention. I have already reverted him several times. More eyes would be appreciated. Ozob ( talk) 01:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to point out this users contributions, which seem to focus heavily on changing the math formatting of articles (sometimes in ways that are improvements, other times in ways that seem pointless). -- JBL ( talk) 13:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
If ever an article needed a "Not Technical Enough" tag, here it is: Abel elliptic functions. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello. A small question for you: I expected an "arithmetico-geometric sequence" to be a sequence of the form , but it turns out this only applies to French usage (disclaimer: I'm French), while in English the term Arithmetico-geometric sequence is already taken for something else. Fine. Why not. But then my questions are: 1° What in the world do you call sequences of the form I gave? I just can't seem to find anything to call them in English, and yet that's so simple and obvious an object that it surely must have a name! 2° Do they have a Wikipedia page yet? Compare FR:Suite arithmetico-geometrique. {{u| Gamall Wednesday Ida}} 17:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Linear recurrences: so that's where they were. I see that the fixpoint technique is dealt with in all generality there. That makes a lot of sense. I have added links to that article in the places where I'd have expected to find them. Thanks for clarifying that. {{u| Gamall Wednesday Ida}} 02:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I have created this.
Look at this section ( Dominical letter#Formula derived from Gauss's algorithm). Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
a\,\bmod\,b
which creates a little extra space . --
Salix alba (
talk):
08:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Salix alba: It seems to miss the point to say you should code it as a\,\bmod\,b. Look at this:
In the second example you see less space to the right of the plus sign. That's how it's intended to work. It is for that reason that we prescribe the following for non-TeX math notation:
\bmod is supposed to work like a binary operation symbol such as the plus sign, having some space to its left and right. To say that we have a manual that says we should manually add small spaces is to say "This thing doesn't work right, so you need to manually add small spaces to compensate for the bug." Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
a\,\bmod\,b
was a workaround to make it work. Now most people are using the MathML/SVG option it should not be necessary. --
Salix alba (
talk):
18:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Here's another bug: These two lines look identical, whereas they should look different. In other words, \mathbin doesn't work.
Might this be the very same bug? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
\mathbin
and \mathrel
. --
Salix alba (
talk):
22:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Should the definition of simple linear regression include the use of ordinary least squares (OLS) as the estimation technique, or does the term embrace non-OLS methods (e.g. least absolute deviations)? Interested editors may wish to respond at Talk:Simple linear regression#Title change. Qwfp ( talk) 08:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Why is most of the TeX code not getting rendered in this page? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The page returned to normal shortly after I posted this, but for something like a half hour it didn't work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
On the page about Geometric Series, /info/en/?search=Geometric_series, for the finite series, the formula for the r<>1 case is given, but not the case for r=1. I believe the correct sum for r=1 is
s = an
Sorry, but I don't have the skills to do the edit myself. Thanks.
Griswold62 ( talk) 13:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
See
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2016/Nov