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)
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)