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)
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)