Combinatorial Mathematics Society of Australasia is newly created article which was moved directly to the mainspace from User:McKay/sandbox by its creator. The draft does not seem to have been submitted for review, and based upon its name it might fall within WP:WPM's scope. Anyway, I was wondering if someone from this WikiProject would mind taking a look at it and assessing it. Most of the sources cited appear to be primary ones, so it's not clear where the organization satisfies WP:NORG. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm requesting that some editors with more experience with math topics take a look at a relatively new article, Exponential response formula, by a relatively new editor, Wandalen. I haven't looked at enough of the articles in this project to have a good idea what constitutes sufficient notability, or how examples should be styled. Thanks. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Izno, I'm trying to bring here information which the encyclopedia does not have. I spent much a day of my free time reading articles and writing topic on math to share my knowledge with others. Wikipedia had no word about material which I'm trying bring here. I don't think that deleting the page without any word, message or discussion is an appropriate act. I don't feel that I'm welcome here and don't understand reasons for your hatred of new people on the platform.
The page on which you did redirection removing whole my article has nothing about ERF. If you are a mathematician, please let's talk how can we improve it. Wandalen ( talk) 15:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The talk page of an article is occasionally insufficient, especially when the topic has been broached already in a more-communal venue. I could also have left a "Look over here again".
As for "awful table", I would tend to agree, that table is awful. But regardless of the presentation there, I would expect this to be at a more-general article than one dealing specifically for the "response function" that is simply a typical solution to a linear ODE. -- Izno ( talk) 02:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Izno help me to improve the page, please. I'm going to contribute to the page on weekends if you won't throw it in garbage. Saying ERF is typical solution to ODE is same as saying wolf is a mammal, lets make redirection from wolf page on mammal page and put all mammals in a table. Appreciate any help. Wandalen ( talk) 17:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Greetings all. Earlier today, I noticed a new page, Alladi–Grinstead constant, which looked in need of cleanup and reworking. I took a stab at it, but someone with a stronger background in number theory could probably do better. Another new page, Lueroth constant, should perhaps be merged into it, since the one constant is just the exponential of the other less one. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I've been working out a Template for "A Series on Discrete Mathematics", based on some of these:
More examples of these sort of things:
Examples more related to specific Mathematics topics
I think these sort of templates would add some structure to the Mathematics part of Wikipedia. What are people's thoughts on this? --- Popcrate ( talk) 09:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard concerning the edits of Hesselp ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Series (mathematics) and Talk:Series (mathematics) that members of this project might be willing and able to comment on. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Normed algebra has been proposed for deletion. Presumably it should be unprodded, but it's in pretty bad shape and needs help to make it more clearly notable first. Anyone want to have a go? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Edit war here about a writer who may be a crackpot; someone with subject expertise please take a look? — swpb T 17:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the talk-page concerning whether the current first sentence (including its footnote) is correct, encyclopedic, and appropriately supported by citation. More voices would be welcome. -- JBL ( talk) 23:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The lead paragraph needs help, in particular. There's been a "needs verification" template on the page since 2013. Currently the lead paragraph reads as:
Exclusive or or exclusive disjunction is a logical operation that outputs true only when inputs differ (one is true, the other is false). It is symbolized by the prefix operator J citation needed and by the infix operators XOR ( /ˌɛks ˈɔːr/), EOR, EXOR, ⊻, ⊕, ↮, and ≢. The negation of XOR is logical biconditional, which outputs true only when both inputs are the same.
Personally, I couldn't find a solid example of J being a symbol for Exclusive Or (maybe it's used in a specific programming language?) Any thoughts? - Popcrate ( talk) 06:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Some sample code was added to Shanks' square forms factorization. I put a citation needed tag on it. Now the original author has made changes to it. This makes me think that it is his own code. Is this wp:OR? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Three years ago the article " Affine space" was attacked by a non-expert. His position: the notion of affine space (like any other) must have just one definition treated literally; not only the structure, but also its implementation (encoding in the set theory) must be fixed once and for all; otherwise mathematics is not rigorous. The attack was repulsed, but, bothered by the vulnerability, after a short discussion here, I built a bastion against possible attacks of this kind: equivalent definitions of mathematical structures. A quote therefrom: A person acquainted with topological spaces knows basic relations between neighborhoods, convergence, continuity, boundary, closure, interior, open sets, closed sets, and does not need to know that some of these notions are "primary", stipulated in the definition of a topological space, while others are "secondary", characterized in terms of "primary" notions.
Now we observe another attack toward " Series (mathematics)" (see "Relevant discussion at WP:ANI" above); User:Hesselp insists on a single definition of a series as a sequence (of terms). For now the article defines a series as (a special case of) an infinite expression. Another equivalent definition in use is, a pair of sequences (terms, and partial sums). Regretfully, this case is not covered by my "bastion", since the set of series is itself not quite an instance of a well-known mathematical structure (though some useful structures on this set are mentioned in our article). And still, it would be useful to write something like A person acquainted with series knows basic relations between terms and partial sums, and does not need to know that some of these notions are "primary", stipulated in the definition of a series, while others are "secondary", characterized in terms of "primary" notions. Implementation need not be unique. When several implementations are in use, should we choose one? or mention them all "with due weight"? or what? Any opinion? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 16:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It is somewhat ironic that, although mathematics is one of the most precise fields, the basic concepts are often not defined identically. For example, the talk page of the article on "function" shows much effort about how to present that concept in a way that is both accurate and accessible to those learning basic algebra and calculus. The same applies to "series": it is a standard, basic concept, which everyone agrees on. But, because it is typically defined in calculus and lower-level books, the definitions that are often given in the books lack something that would be present in a graduate level text. This does not mean, however, that we should try to present "series" in the style of Bourbaki. Instead, we should follow the sources and present the same general understanding that they convey. To some extent, I agree with the proposition above that in articles about *elementary* subjects, it is not necessary to focus too heavily on axiomatics. Of course, more advanced articles will naturally have a more axiomatic focus. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 20:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I stand puzzled. Some notions are primitive (undefined), some are defined, and some appear to be... elementary? undergraduate? Well, I do not argue about names. But let us imagine that we are preparing a proof of a theorem for verification on a proof assistant. In the middle we face series. What now? Say "this theorem is not formalizable in ZFC"? Surely not. Surely we continue. What does it mean? A vague term whose meaning is determined implicitly by the context, case-by-case? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 05:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Representation theory of the Lorentz group is currently a good article nominee, nominated by YohanN7. I have started reviewing the article, but there is a fundamental disagreement here: the article is, in my opinion, much too long and covers topic in a level of detail that should better be deferred to related articles. YohanN7, of course, is of a different opinion, stated here.
Can someone please have a look and weigh in at the nomination talk page? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 15:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The opinions of learned mathematicians would be helpful at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Envelope model, a discussion that appears to be dominated by those with the attitude that advanced topics have no place in Wikipedia, and deserve to be TNT'd. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2017/May/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Mathematics, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I've made a copy of this deleted article at User:Michael_Hardy/Envelope_model. Users should feel free to edit it to bring it into a form that would justify restoring it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Is the article titled Liouville space worth keeping? It says it's the Cartesian product of two Hilbert spaces. Isn't that somewhat trivially a Hilbert space in its own right? The article doesn't indicate why such a concept is useful. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Power~enwiki ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making edits to number articles, removing apparently significant mathematics facts, usually without an edit summary. For example, 90, 87, 86, 85, 82, and so forth all the way down to 1. Similarly highly questionable edits (with the same misleading boilerplate edit summary) were made to all of the small integers through about 20, e.g., 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, etc.
I believe that changes affecting many articles should be discussed, and consensus obtained before implementing them. I am not sure what criteria the editor is using to exclude properties as sufficiently interesting, but it seems to be entirely subjective and not based on any guidelines. Indeed, Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) actually does demand at least three mathematical properties of numbers. Mersenne primes, aliquot sequences, repdigits, palindromic numbers, Harshad numbers, Erdős–Woods numbers, and a host of other properties, all seem like the kinds of properties that articles about specific numbers should discuss, but I note that these have apparently now been expunged from our number articles. I do not particularly trust this user's editorial judgement on what numerical properties are due weight for inclusion. I am inclined to revert all of these edits, pending discussion and consensus, but that should await community support. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Solomon7968 has been removing all mention of Erdős numbers from many articles about mathematicians. Most people consider this information to be significant. He mentions that one other editor agrees with him. This overlooks the fact that tens of editors (perhaps hundreds) do not agree with him––namely all the people who went to the trouble of mentioning the Erdős number in the first place. I urge Solomon7968 to slow down, at least until there is more discussion of this sweeping change.–– Toploftical ( talk) 19:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
So I have come across this List of women in mathematics, and will be going through it to improve the articles. While this is probably more biography related, I thought I would post about it here because of its relevance to mathematics. I was wondering if anybody has some research tips/advice, wants to help, or has any general thoughts. - Popcrate ( talk) 07:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, |
Fields are a new good article nomination. The article is a level 4 vital article. I am looking forward to your review (follow the instructions at the top of the talk page of the article to start a review); thank you. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 19:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I came across this template {{Math_theorem|name|<math> </math>}} in Brahmagupta–Fibonacci identity (old version). I personally dislike the use there and do not find its output really helpful in this case. I also haven't come across it anywhere else yet. So I'm wondering what other math editors think of it and whether there is some consensus regarding its use or even awareness of its existence.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Combinatorial Mathematics Society of Australasia is newly created article which was moved directly to the mainspace from User:McKay/sandbox by its creator. The draft does not seem to have been submitted for review, and based upon its name it might fall within WP:WPM's scope. Anyway, I was wondering if someone from this WikiProject would mind taking a look at it and assessing it. Most of the sources cited appear to be primary ones, so it's not clear where the organization satisfies WP:NORG. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm requesting that some editors with more experience with math topics take a look at a relatively new article, Exponential response formula, by a relatively new editor, Wandalen. I haven't looked at enough of the articles in this project to have a good idea what constitutes sufficient notability, or how examples should be styled. Thanks. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Izno, I'm trying to bring here information which the encyclopedia does not have. I spent much a day of my free time reading articles and writing topic on math to share my knowledge with others. Wikipedia had no word about material which I'm trying bring here. I don't think that deleting the page without any word, message or discussion is an appropriate act. I don't feel that I'm welcome here and don't understand reasons for your hatred of new people on the platform.
The page on which you did redirection removing whole my article has nothing about ERF. If you are a mathematician, please let's talk how can we improve it. Wandalen ( talk) 15:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The talk page of an article is occasionally insufficient, especially when the topic has been broached already in a more-communal venue. I could also have left a "Look over here again".
As for "awful table", I would tend to agree, that table is awful. But regardless of the presentation there, I would expect this to be at a more-general article than one dealing specifically for the "response function" that is simply a typical solution to a linear ODE. -- Izno ( talk) 02:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Izno help me to improve the page, please. I'm going to contribute to the page on weekends if you won't throw it in garbage. Saying ERF is typical solution to ODE is same as saying wolf is a mammal, lets make redirection from wolf page on mammal page and put all mammals in a table. Appreciate any help. Wandalen ( talk) 17:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Greetings all. Earlier today, I noticed a new page, Alladi–Grinstead constant, which looked in need of cleanup and reworking. I took a stab at it, but someone with a stronger background in number theory could probably do better. Another new page, Lueroth constant, should perhaps be merged into it, since the one constant is just the exponential of the other less one. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I've been working out a Template for "A Series on Discrete Mathematics", based on some of these:
More examples of these sort of things:
Examples more related to specific Mathematics topics
I think these sort of templates would add some structure to the Mathematics part of Wikipedia. What are people's thoughts on this? --- Popcrate ( talk) 09:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard concerning the edits of Hesselp ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Series (mathematics) and Talk:Series (mathematics) that members of this project might be willing and able to comment on. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Normed algebra has been proposed for deletion. Presumably it should be unprodded, but it's in pretty bad shape and needs help to make it more clearly notable first. Anyone want to have a go? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Edit war here about a writer who may be a crackpot; someone with subject expertise please take a look? — swpb T 17:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the talk-page concerning whether the current first sentence (including its footnote) is correct, encyclopedic, and appropriately supported by citation. More voices would be welcome. -- JBL ( talk) 23:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The lead paragraph needs help, in particular. There's been a "needs verification" template on the page since 2013. Currently the lead paragraph reads as:
Exclusive or or exclusive disjunction is a logical operation that outputs true only when inputs differ (one is true, the other is false). It is symbolized by the prefix operator J citation needed and by the infix operators XOR ( /ˌɛks ˈɔːr/), EOR, EXOR, ⊻, ⊕, ↮, and ≢. The negation of XOR is logical biconditional, which outputs true only when both inputs are the same.
Personally, I couldn't find a solid example of J being a symbol for Exclusive Or (maybe it's used in a specific programming language?) Any thoughts? - Popcrate ( talk) 06:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Some sample code was added to Shanks' square forms factorization. I put a citation needed tag on it. Now the original author has made changes to it. This makes me think that it is his own code. Is this wp:OR? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Three years ago the article " Affine space" was attacked by a non-expert. His position: the notion of affine space (like any other) must have just one definition treated literally; not only the structure, but also its implementation (encoding in the set theory) must be fixed once and for all; otherwise mathematics is not rigorous. The attack was repulsed, but, bothered by the vulnerability, after a short discussion here, I built a bastion against possible attacks of this kind: equivalent definitions of mathematical structures. A quote therefrom: A person acquainted with topological spaces knows basic relations between neighborhoods, convergence, continuity, boundary, closure, interior, open sets, closed sets, and does not need to know that some of these notions are "primary", stipulated in the definition of a topological space, while others are "secondary", characterized in terms of "primary" notions.
Now we observe another attack toward " Series (mathematics)" (see "Relevant discussion at WP:ANI" above); User:Hesselp insists on a single definition of a series as a sequence (of terms). For now the article defines a series as (a special case of) an infinite expression. Another equivalent definition in use is, a pair of sequences (terms, and partial sums). Regretfully, this case is not covered by my "bastion", since the set of series is itself not quite an instance of a well-known mathematical structure (though some useful structures on this set are mentioned in our article). And still, it would be useful to write something like A person acquainted with series knows basic relations between terms and partial sums, and does not need to know that some of these notions are "primary", stipulated in the definition of a series, while others are "secondary", characterized in terms of "primary" notions. Implementation need not be unique. When several implementations are in use, should we choose one? or mention them all "with due weight"? or what? Any opinion? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 16:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It is somewhat ironic that, although mathematics is one of the most precise fields, the basic concepts are often not defined identically. For example, the talk page of the article on "function" shows much effort about how to present that concept in a way that is both accurate and accessible to those learning basic algebra and calculus. The same applies to "series": it is a standard, basic concept, which everyone agrees on. But, because it is typically defined in calculus and lower-level books, the definitions that are often given in the books lack something that would be present in a graduate level text. This does not mean, however, that we should try to present "series" in the style of Bourbaki. Instead, we should follow the sources and present the same general understanding that they convey. To some extent, I agree with the proposition above that in articles about *elementary* subjects, it is not necessary to focus too heavily on axiomatics. Of course, more advanced articles will naturally have a more axiomatic focus. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 20:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I stand puzzled. Some notions are primitive (undefined), some are defined, and some appear to be... elementary? undergraduate? Well, I do not argue about names. But let us imagine that we are preparing a proof of a theorem for verification on a proof assistant. In the middle we face series. What now? Say "this theorem is not formalizable in ZFC"? Surely not. Surely we continue. What does it mean? A vague term whose meaning is determined implicitly by the context, case-by-case? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 05:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Representation theory of the Lorentz group is currently a good article nominee, nominated by YohanN7. I have started reviewing the article, but there is a fundamental disagreement here: the article is, in my opinion, much too long and covers topic in a level of detail that should better be deferred to related articles. YohanN7, of course, is of a different opinion, stated here.
Can someone please have a look and weigh in at the nomination talk page? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 15:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The opinions of learned mathematicians would be helpful at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Envelope model, a discussion that appears to be dominated by those with the attitude that advanced topics have no place in Wikipedia, and deserve to be TNT'd. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 13:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2017/May/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Mathematics, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I've made a copy of this deleted article at User:Michael_Hardy/Envelope_model. Users should feel free to edit it to bring it into a form that would justify restoring it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Is the article titled Liouville space worth keeping? It says it's the Cartesian product of two Hilbert spaces. Isn't that somewhat trivially a Hilbert space in its own right? The article doesn't indicate why such a concept is useful. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Power~enwiki ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making edits to number articles, removing apparently significant mathematics facts, usually without an edit summary. For example, 90, 87, 86, 85, 82, and so forth all the way down to 1. Similarly highly questionable edits (with the same misleading boilerplate edit summary) were made to all of the small integers through about 20, e.g., 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, etc.
I believe that changes affecting many articles should be discussed, and consensus obtained before implementing them. I am not sure what criteria the editor is using to exclude properties as sufficiently interesting, but it seems to be entirely subjective and not based on any guidelines. Indeed, Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) actually does demand at least three mathematical properties of numbers. Mersenne primes, aliquot sequences, repdigits, palindromic numbers, Harshad numbers, Erdős–Woods numbers, and a host of other properties, all seem like the kinds of properties that articles about specific numbers should discuss, but I note that these have apparently now been expunged from our number articles. I do not particularly trust this user's editorial judgement on what numerical properties are due weight for inclusion. I am inclined to revert all of these edits, pending discussion and consensus, but that should await community support. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Solomon7968 has been removing all mention of Erdős numbers from many articles about mathematicians. Most people consider this information to be significant. He mentions that one other editor agrees with him. This overlooks the fact that tens of editors (perhaps hundreds) do not agree with him––namely all the people who went to the trouble of mentioning the Erdős number in the first place. I urge Solomon7968 to slow down, at least until there is more discussion of this sweeping change.–– Toploftical ( talk) 19:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
So I have come across this List of women in mathematics, and will be going through it to improve the articles. While this is probably more biography related, I thought I would post about it here because of its relevance to mathematics. I was wondering if anybody has some research tips/advice, wants to help, or has any general thoughts. - Popcrate ( talk) 07:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello, |
Fields are a new good article nomination. The article is a level 4 vital article. I am looking forward to your review (follow the instructions at the top of the talk page of the article to start a review); thank you. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 19:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I came across this template {{Math_theorem|name|<math> </math>}} in Brahmagupta–Fibonacci identity (old version). I personally dislike the use there and do not find its output really helpful in this case. I also haven't come across it anywhere else yet. So I'm wondering what other math editors think of it and whether there is some consensus regarding its use or even awareness of its existence.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)