Opinions of this edit?
An argument for capitalizing the initial "G" is that it's a capital Gamma. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
In this section of Hartley transform I found this line:
I changed it to this:
Obviously the reason for the deficiency of space between "2" and "cas" was the use of \mbox{} instead of \operatorname{}. But both before and after that edit, we see less than the usual amount of space before and after than plus and minus signs, as exemplified here:
And the spacing deficiency in a + b is even worse after the edit than before. Note that the spacing in a + b is normal in the identities for sine and cosine.
Why is there that deficiency of space surrounding plus and minus signs? Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The new article titled Minimal algebra is an orphan (i.e. no other articles link to it), cites no references, and is severely stubby. It may also have other issues. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Forcing (mathematics) could use a once-over. It contains some odd phrasing with jumbled or missing words, such as "because it's the truth value at some point is defined by it's truth value." At the very least, one of those "it's" seems unnecessary/wrong, but this is not my area and I don't really understand the sense of the sentence as a whole. I do know it's not grammatical. There are also the incomplete (?) sentence "Such ordering is well founded to," the phrase "Define we forcing," and other oddities. Would someone versed in this area mind taking a look? Thank you. Jessicapierce ( talk) 20:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
One seldom sees a weaker attempt at a Wikipedia article that the one called Hodge–Tate theory in its current state. Can it be made into something worth keeping? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Presently Module redirects to Modularity. I have requested to revert an old move, that is to move Module (disambiguation) to Module. As this concerns, among others, Module (mathematics), Modular arithmetic and various other mathematical articles, some members of this project may want to participate to the discussion at Talk:Module (disambiguation). D.Lazard ( talk) 11:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Participation to the move discussion is welcome at Talk:Permutation representation (disambiguation). —- Taku ( talk) 20:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
A slow edit war has begun in Hypersurface since 2012. About an animation which, in my opinion, is not really related to the subject, and disturbs reading. As I recommended in my last revert, a discussion has started at Talk: Hypersurface#Animated plot, that requires third party opinions. D.Lazard ( talk) 22:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I would like to bring possible self-publication by Dominic Rochon and Pierre-Olivier Parisé to the attention of the more experienced editors in this group, since I'm not sure how this is most effectively managed. Please look at:
Several observations seem to apply: Multiple IPs from the same general location that could be the same person have been used:
I think the most egregious is edit warring at an established article to include a self-published fringe topic. The remainder may not pass the guidelines for inclusion in WP, but I leave that to the judgement of better-qualified Wikipedians. — Quondum 02:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated Tricomplex numbers, Tricomplex multibrot set, and Tetrabrot for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tricomplex numbers D.Lazard ( talk) 13:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Consider the essay Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy which describes a simple game of following wikipedia links, under a mild set of conditions. The claim is that 97% of the time one ends up at the Philosophy article. It is clear that by following the rules one must either end up at a sink (an article with no appropriate outgoing links) or in a loop. Stopping at Philosophy is a bit arbitrary as any such path could be continued to Education -> Learning before entering the Knowledge ↔ Facts loop. One of the reasons that the percentage is not higher is due to the Mathematics -> Quantity -> Counting -> Element (mathematics) -> Mathematics loop. It appears that some editors have taken up the task of increasing the percentage by trying to break up this mathematics loop. This has resulted in some very contorted rewriting of the first sentences in these particular articles (see this edit, and these edits). Paul August and I and some others have been reverting these mangled attempts but we are at a loss as to whether there is anything more proactive that we could do. Suggestions welcome.
In a related issue (actually more of a pet peeve of mine), I am distressed by the number of our articles that start with "In [[Mathematics]], ...". This formulaic approach, meant to put the topic of the article into context, seems to not be as useful for readers, due to its generality, as the frequency of its use makes it appear. Sometimes it is the right way to start, but other times there are better approaches and there are even instances where it is inappropriate (Element (mathematics) being one case in my opinion). Could we have a discussion of a better set of guidelines to use in mathematics articles for the purpose of putting the topic into context? -- Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 03:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The reason for beginning with "In mathematics," is that the lay reader's unfamiliarity with the field may lead to confusion. Once there was an article titled "schismatic temperament," which I assumed, based on the title, was about a topic in psychiatry or the like, and I had to read several sentences before I found out it was about musical scales.
Alternatively, "In geometry," or "In algebra," etc. can serve, but "In category theory" or "In functional analysis" cannot since they don't tell the lay reader that's it's about mathematics.
If the title of the article is Mathematical induction or something that otherwise tells the lay reader that it's mathematics, then there's no need for the context-setting phrase and the phrase is probably just clutter then. Likewise often some other phrase in the opening sentence is sufficient and the "In" incipit can be omitted. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Hesselp has started nibbling at the edges of his topic ban from Series, at the article Cesaro summation, where he has some novel ideas of his own. The situation could use close monitoring. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Just some comment from an outsider: this seems to be mainly of a terminology issue. Is 1+1 the same as 2? Numerically speaking, the answer is trivially (I suppose) yes while the former is a sum and the later isn't; so in that sense they are different. The case of series is similar; for the purpose of discussion, a numerical series converges to pi need to be somehow distinguished from pi, even writing down pi itself involves some infinite expression. I don't think the language in mathematics that is currently in use is able to take these nuances into account. I guess one mathematically rigorous way is to somehow encode the construction that is used to obtain the results; i.e., histories behind objects. I'm sure the resulting approach to calculus should be called motivic calculus. (In case you thought this is a joke, actually I'm 1 percent serious about this concept.) -- Taku ( talk) 05:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Some truth lurks behind his position.
However, whenever I try to elucidate such truth, he always disagrees: "but this is not my point". I fail to understand his point. In practice I observe that he attacks, here and there, an occurrence of the word "series" and insists on reformulating the text in order to remove this occurrence ("since this is consistent", or "more clear", or "less context-dependent", or "simpler", "more logical" etc). Maybe he hopes to gradually exterminate the word "series" this way. Anyway, he grossly exaggerates importance of all that. He believes that this is not just a pedagogical problem, but a mathematical problem, that mathematics is inconsistent (God forbid) because of that, etc.
Really, is it possible to reformulate everything (equivalently) in a "series-free" language? Yes, of course. Every mathematician can easily reformulate a statement accordingly. (And by the way, this is why consistency of mathematics is still safe.) Instead of a series one may use the sequence of its terms, or alternatively the sequence of its partial sums, or the pair of these two (interrelated) sequences. Other possibilities are also available, of course.
The question is, does it makes our language more convenient, or less convenient. I tried to consider some examples (" User talk:Hesselp#Only a pedagogical problem?", near the end), but he missed my point completely.
As far as I see, it is possible to exterminate the word "series" from mathematics, but it is not worth to do, since ultimately it makes our language less convenient. This is not done for now, and I do not think this will happen in the (near) future.
Even if this seems helpful to do in textbooks, it is not. Textbooks should prepare a student to reading math literature. Thus, the word "series" (with all its intricacies) should be known to students. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 10:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Some response to all of the above: I think it is useful to remember calculus that is currently taught and is in use is not the only one and not even necessary an optimum one. An example: is 0.999... the same as 1? This is mainly of the language problem. The "standard" interpretation is that the former denotes the limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, ... and so (trivially??) is 1. But one might resonantly argue the former should mean a "number" that is arbitrary close to 1 but is less than 1; namely, 1 - infinitesimal. This is a matter of what calculus we are using. In some edge cases, the interpretations need not be obvious: the typical example is the "series" . I think by that one typically means Cauchy's principal value of the series. But arguably the best approach is to study such a series in the context of distributional calculus. In other words, it is fallacy to assume there is one unique consistent approach to calculus; we search for it in vain (no?) -- Taku ( talk) 04:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I invite everyone who criticizes my attempts to improve WP articles on 'series', to compare five sentences from Cauchy's text (1821) with Birkhoff's adapted (improved? modernized?) version (1973).
A. Birkhoff's adapted translation (see Garrett Birkhoff A Source Book in Classical Analysis 1973
page 3; this adapted text is copied by J. Fauvel, J. Gray in The History of Mathematics: A Reader 1987,
p.567, no digital version of this section) reads:
A sequence is an infinite succession of quantities u0, u1, u2, u3, ...
which succeed each other according to some fixed law.
These quantities themselves are the different terms of the sequence considered.
Let sn = u0 + u1 + u2 + u3 + ··· + un-1 be the sum of the first n terms, where n is some integer.
If the sum sn tends to a certain limit s for increasing values of n, then the series is said to be convergent,
and the limit in question is called the sum of the series.
[.....] By the principles established above, for the series
u0 + u1 + u2 + ··· + un + un+1 + ··· to converge,
it is necessary and sufficiant that the sums sn = u0 + u1 + u2 + u3 + ··· + un-1 converge to a fixed limit s as n increases.
B. Birkhoff's translation without his adaptations (see
Cauchy 1821 (French) and
Bradley-Sandifer 2009 (English)) reads:
Series is used as name for (Cauchy: On appelle série) an infinite sequence (Cauchy: suite) of quantities u0, u1, u2, u3, ...
which succeed each other according to some fixed law.
These quantities themselves are the different terms of the series considered.
Let sn = u0 + u1 + u2 + u3 + ··· + un-1 be the sum of the first n terms, where n is some integer.
If the sum sn tends to a certain limit s for increasing values of n, then the series is said to be convergent (Cauchy: convergente),
and the limit in question is called the sum (Cauchy: somme) of the series.
[.....] By the principles established above, in order that the series
u0 , u1 , u2 , ···, un , un+1 , ··· be convergent,
it is necessary and sufficiant that the sums sn = u0 + u1 + u2 + u3 + ··· + un-1 converge to a fixed limit s as n increases.
Cauchy's nomenclature is consistent (although the adjective 'summable' instead of his adjective 'convergent' - close to the verb 'to converge' for 'tend to a limit' - could have avoided quite a lot of misunderstanding). In the adapted text, the word 'series' pops up in the fourth sentence without any explanation.
Birkhoff remarks in a footnote "Cauchy uses the word 'series' for 'sequence' and 'series' alike, ...". This is incorrect: Cauchy uses série in all his works only for "an infinite sequence of reals". --
Hesselp (
talk)
15:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Limit-theorem You use "There is an admin discussion." as argument for undoing a revision on a talk page. Please mention here where in WP's Policies and guidelines anything is said about the relevance of this argument. Or anything that touches this. I cannot find it; I suppose there's nothing of this kind. -- Hesselp ( talk) 19:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:ANI#User:Hesselp violation of topic ban. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Our " Space (mathematics)" is submitted to WikiJournal of Science and refereed there. In the second referee report I read:
I reply:
Who is ready to take this challenge? Thanks in advance. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 18:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
And, by the way, that journal is Wikipedia-integrated: Appropriate material is integrated into Wikipedia for added reach and exposure. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
It may happen that you are ready to take this challenge, but your name is hidden behind your username and you do not want to disclose it. In this case, do not reply here (or reply anonymously), register on Wikiversity under your true name and edit there. Contact me there on v:User talk:Tsirel. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I boldly notify some experts that maybe rarely visit this page: User:John Baez, User:R.e.b.. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 07:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
No volunteers? A pity. For now, I wrote something... A competent coauthor is still welcome, of course. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 09:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
A lot of thanks to Ozob for Space (mathematics)#Schemes and Space (mathematics)#Topoi. Wow! Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 06:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Came across this article again for the first time in a while. Current article gives the impression that it is part of the scientific enterprise in a meaningful way and almost entirely avoids the fact that it is mostly just a nicely formatted crank magnet. Perhaps it could use some attention. -- JBL ( talk) 13:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. I noticed polynomial mapping is a red link. Is this topic covered somewhere? I think it would be unhelpful to just redirect it to polynomial or polynomial function. So I’m planning to start the article if there is no good redirect target. (The definition in the finite-dimensional case appears in Jacobian conjecture#The Jacobian determinant.) —- Taku ( talk) 21:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I have proposed the move of the section title at Talk:Tannakian category. Opinions on the move are very welcome. -- Taku ( talk) 23:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Opinions of this edit?
An argument for capitalizing the initial "G" is that it's a capital Gamma. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
In this section of Hartley transform I found this line:
I changed it to this:
Obviously the reason for the deficiency of space between "2" and "cas" was the use of \mbox{} instead of \operatorname{}. But both before and after that edit, we see less than the usual amount of space before and after than plus and minus signs, as exemplified here:
And the spacing deficiency in a + b is even worse after the edit than before. Note that the spacing in a + b is normal in the identities for sine and cosine.
Why is there that deficiency of space surrounding plus and minus signs? Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The new article titled Minimal algebra is an orphan (i.e. no other articles link to it), cites no references, and is severely stubby. It may also have other issues. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Forcing (mathematics) could use a once-over. It contains some odd phrasing with jumbled or missing words, such as "because it's the truth value at some point is defined by it's truth value." At the very least, one of those "it's" seems unnecessary/wrong, but this is not my area and I don't really understand the sense of the sentence as a whole. I do know it's not grammatical. There are also the incomplete (?) sentence "Such ordering is well founded to," the phrase "Define we forcing," and other oddities. Would someone versed in this area mind taking a look? Thank you. Jessicapierce ( talk) 20:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
One seldom sees a weaker attempt at a Wikipedia article that the one called Hodge–Tate theory in its current state. Can it be made into something worth keeping? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Presently Module redirects to Modularity. I have requested to revert an old move, that is to move Module (disambiguation) to Module. As this concerns, among others, Module (mathematics), Modular arithmetic and various other mathematical articles, some members of this project may want to participate to the discussion at Talk:Module (disambiguation). D.Lazard ( talk) 11:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Participation to the move discussion is welcome at Talk:Permutation representation (disambiguation). —- Taku ( talk) 20:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
A slow edit war has begun in Hypersurface since 2012. About an animation which, in my opinion, is not really related to the subject, and disturbs reading. As I recommended in my last revert, a discussion has started at Talk: Hypersurface#Animated plot, that requires third party opinions. D.Lazard ( talk) 22:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I would like to bring possible self-publication by Dominic Rochon and Pierre-Olivier Parisé to the attention of the more experienced editors in this group, since I'm not sure how this is most effectively managed. Please look at:
Several observations seem to apply: Multiple IPs from the same general location that could be the same person have been used:
I think the most egregious is edit warring at an established article to include a self-published fringe topic. The remainder may not pass the guidelines for inclusion in WP, but I leave that to the judgement of better-qualified Wikipedians. — Quondum 02:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I have nominated Tricomplex numbers, Tricomplex multibrot set, and Tetrabrot for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tricomplex numbers D.Lazard ( talk) 13:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Consider the essay Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy which describes a simple game of following wikipedia links, under a mild set of conditions. The claim is that 97% of the time one ends up at the Philosophy article. It is clear that by following the rules one must either end up at a sink (an article with no appropriate outgoing links) or in a loop. Stopping at Philosophy is a bit arbitrary as any such path could be continued to Education -> Learning before entering the Knowledge ↔ Facts loop. One of the reasons that the percentage is not higher is due to the Mathematics -> Quantity -> Counting -> Element (mathematics) -> Mathematics loop. It appears that some editors have taken up the task of increasing the percentage by trying to break up this mathematics loop. This has resulted in some very contorted rewriting of the first sentences in these particular articles (see this edit, and these edits). Paul August and I and some others have been reverting these mangled attempts but we are at a loss as to whether there is anything more proactive that we could do. Suggestions welcome.
In a related issue (actually more of a pet peeve of mine), I am distressed by the number of our articles that start with "In [[Mathematics]], ...". This formulaic approach, meant to put the topic of the article into context, seems to not be as useful for readers, due to its generality, as the frequency of its use makes it appear. Sometimes it is the right way to start, but other times there are better approaches and there are even instances where it is inappropriate (Element (mathematics) being one case in my opinion). Could we have a discussion of a better set of guidelines to use in mathematics articles for the purpose of putting the topic into context? -- Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 03:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The reason for beginning with "In mathematics," is that the lay reader's unfamiliarity with the field may lead to confusion. Once there was an article titled "schismatic temperament," which I assumed, based on the title, was about a topic in psychiatry or the like, and I had to read several sentences before I found out it was about musical scales.
Alternatively, "In geometry," or "In algebra," etc. can serve, but "In category theory" or "In functional analysis" cannot since they don't tell the lay reader that's it's about mathematics.
If the title of the article is Mathematical induction or something that otherwise tells the lay reader that it's mathematics, then there's no need for the context-setting phrase and the phrase is probably just clutter then. Likewise often some other phrase in the opening sentence is sufficient and the "In" incipit can be omitted. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Hesselp has started nibbling at the edges of his topic ban from Series, at the article Cesaro summation, where he has some novel ideas of his own. The situation could use close monitoring. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Just some comment from an outsider: this seems to be mainly of a terminology issue. Is 1+1 the same as 2? Numerically speaking, the answer is trivially (I suppose) yes while the former is a sum and the later isn't; so in that sense they are different. The case of series is similar; for the purpose of discussion, a numerical series converges to pi need to be somehow distinguished from pi, even writing down pi itself involves some infinite expression. I don't think the language in mathematics that is currently in use is able to take these nuances into account. I guess one mathematically rigorous way is to somehow encode the construction that is used to obtain the results; i.e., histories behind objects. I'm sure the resulting approach to calculus should be called motivic calculus. (In case you thought this is a joke, actually I'm 1 percent serious about this concept.) -- Taku ( talk) 05:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Some truth lurks behind his position.
However, whenever I try to elucidate such truth, he always disagrees: "but this is not my point". I fail to understand his point. In practice I observe that he attacks, here and there, an occurrence of the word "series" and insists on reformulating the text in order to remove this occurrence ("since this is consistent", or "more clear", or "less context-dependent", or "simpler", "more logical" etc). Maybe he hopes to gradually exterminate the word "series" this way. Anyway, he grossly exaggerates importance of all that. He believes that this is not just a pedagogical problem, but a mathematical problem, that mathematics is inconsistent (God forbid) because of that, etc.
Really, is it possible to reformulate everything (equivalently) in a "series-free" language? Yes, of course. Every mathematician can easily reformulate a statement accordingly. (And by the way, this is why consistency of mathematics is still safe.) Instead of a series one may use the sequence of its terms, or alternatively the sequence of its partial sums, or the pair of these two (interrelated) sequences. Other possibilities are also available, of course.
The question is, does it makes our language more convenient, or less convenient. I tried to consider some examples (" User talk:Hesselp#Only a pedagogical problem?", near the end), but he missed my point completely.
As far as I see, it is possible to exterminate the word "series" from mathematics, but it is not worth to do, since ultimately it makes our language less convenient. This is not done for now, and I do not think this will happen in the (near) future.
Even if this seems helpful to do in textbooks, it is not. Textbooks should prepare a student to reading math literature. Thus, the word "series" (with all its intricacies) should be known to students. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 10:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Some response to all of the above: I think it is useful to remember calculus that is currently taught and is in use is not the only one and not even necessary an optimum one. An example: is 0.999... the same as 1? This is mainly of the language problem. The "standard" interpretation is that the former denotes the limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, ... and so (trivially??) is 1. But one might resonantly argue the former should mean a "number" that is arbitrary close to 1 but is less than 1; namely, 1 - infinitesimal. This is a matter of what calculus we are using. In some edge cases, the interpretations need not be obvious: the typical example is the "series" . I think by that one typically means Cauchy's principal value of the series. But arguably the best approach is to study such a series in the context of distributional calculus. In other words, it is fallacy to assume there is one unique consistent approach to calculus; we search for it in vain (no?) -- Taku ( talk) 04:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I invite everyone who criticizes my attempts to improve WP articles on 'series', to compare five sentences from Cauchy's text (1821) with Birkhoff's adapted (improved? modernized?) version (1973).
A. Birkhoff's adapted translation (see Garrett Birkhoff A Source Book in Classical Analysis 1973
page 3; this adapted text is copied by J. Fauvel, J. Gray in The History of Mathematics: A Reader 1987,
p.567, no digital version of this section) reads:
A sequence is an infinite succession of quantities u0, u1, u2, u3, ...
which succeed each other according to some fixed law.
These quantities themselves are the different terms of the sequence considered.
Let sn = u0 + u1 + u2 + u3 + ··· + un-1 be the sum of the first n terms, where n is some integer.
If the sum sn tends to a certain limit s for increasing values of n, then the series is said to be convergent,
and the limit in question is called the sum of the series.
[.....] By the principles established above, for the series
u0 + u1 + u2 + ··· + un + un+1 + ··· to converge,
it is necessary and sufficiant that the sums sn = u0 + u1 + u2 + u3 + ··· + un-1 converge to a fixed limit s as n increases.
B. Birkhoff's translation without his adaptations (see
Cauchy 1821 (French) and
Bradley-Sandifer 2009 (English)) reads:
Series is used as name for (Cauchy: On appelle série) an infinite sequence (Cauchy: suite) of quantities u0, u1, u2, u3, ...
which succeed each other according to some fixed law.
These quantities themselves are the different terms of the series considered.
Let sn = u0 + u1 + u2 + u3 + ··· + un-1 be the sum of the first n terms, where n is some integer.
If the sum sn tends to a certain limit s for increasing values of n, then the series is said to be convergent (Cauchy: convergente),
and the limit in question is called the sum (Cauchy: somme) of the series.
[.....] By the principles established above, in order that the series
u0 , u1 , u2 , ···, un , un+1 , ··· be convergent,
it is necessary and sufficiant that the sums sn = u0 + u1 + u2 + u3 + ··· + un-1 converge to a fixed limit s as n increases.
Cauchy's nomenclature is consistent (although the adjective 'summable' instead of his adjective 'convergent' - close to the verb 'to converge' for 'tend to a limit' - could have avoided quite a lot of misunderstanding). In the adapted text, the word 'series' pops up in the fourth sentence without any explanation.
Birkhoff remarks in a footnote "Cauchy uses the word 'series' for 'sequence' and 'series' alike, ...". This is incorrect: Cauchy uses série in all his works only for "an infinite sequence of reals". --
Hesselp (
talk)
15:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Limit-theorem You use "There is an admin discussion." as argument for undoing a revision on a talk page. Please mention here where in WP's Policies and guidelines anything is said about the relevance of this argument. Or anything that touches this. I cannot find it; I suppose there's nothing of this kind. -- Hesselp ( talk) 19:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:ANI#User:Hesselp violation of topic ban. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Our " Space (mathematics)" is submitted to WikiJournal of Science and refereed there. In the second referee report I read:
I reply:
Who is ready to take this challenge? Thanks in advance. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 18:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
And, by the way, that journal is Wikipedia-integrated: Appropriate material is integrated into Wikipedia for added reach and exposure. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
It may happen that you are ready to take this challenge, but your name is hidden behind your username and you do not want to disclose it. In this case, do not reply here (or reply anonymously), register on Wikiversity under your true name and edit there. Contact me there on v:User talk:Tsirel. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I boldly notify some experts that maybe rarely visit this page: User:John Baez, User:R.e.b.. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 07:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
No volunteers? A pity. For now, I wrote something... A competent coauthor is still welcome, of course. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 09:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
A lot of thanks to Ozob for Space (mathematics)#Schemes and Space (mathematics)#Topoi. Wow! Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 06:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Came across this article again for the first time in a while. Current article gives the impression that it is part of the scientific enterprise in a meaningful way and almost entirely avoids the fact that it is mostly just a nicely formatted crank magnet. Perhaps it could use some attention. -- JBL ( talk) 13:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. I noticed polynomial mapping is a red link. Is this topic covered somewhere? I think it would be unhelpful to just redirect it to polynomial or polynomial function. So I’m planning to start the article if there is no good redirect target. (The definition in the finite-dimensional case appears in Jacobian conjecture#The Jacobian determinant.) —- Taku ( talk) 21:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I have proposed the move of the section title at Talk:Tannakian category. Opinions on the move are very welcome. -- Taku ( talk) 23:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)