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 [1] 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)
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 [1] 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)