See Talk:Reciprocal_rule. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Currently the dualizing complex for wikipedia directs to the Verdier duality page. This is partially correct since this could also redirect to the Coherent duality page. Can someone create a disambiguation page for these two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username6330 ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I am not a mathematician, but my friend is. The most current version of the Wikipedia article on Erdős–Turán conjecture states that it remains unsolved. Here is a published article written by my friend Dr. Martin Helm back in 1993, which might change this. I would love an expert comment on this. Thank you very much!
Best regards, Aleksandr — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocAZ ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
User Ujin-X ( contributions) has been making a number of edits related to vectors, broadly construed; all of it has the taste of crankery (trying to get direction vector deleted, adding what looks like invented terminology to articles, etc.). Perhaps this could use a few more eyes. -- JBL ( talk) 12:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Dear judges, I thank you for your attention to my person, but in Wikipedia I do not discuss myself, but the result of scientific achievement in the theory of vectors. I'm sorry to see that many of you, without bothering to read the article "Angular vectors in the theory of vectors", delete or misinterpret new terms and definitions.
All these terms (angular vector, rectilinear vector, inverse vector, vector division) have appeared, because in the existing theory of vectors there are a number of problems.
The angular vector has appeared, since Euclidean vectors (direction vectors) can not correctly display angular physical quantities (angular velocity, torque, etc.) in the coordinate system. A rotating ball can not have a straight rectilinear direction.
With the advent of the term angular vector, it becomes necessary to distinguish it from the Euclidean vector, so it is logical to call it rectilinear vector, it has always been that way.
The term inverse vector appeared in the process of solving a problem with a cross product of vectors, when one of them is represented as a unit divided by a vector. The most valuable thing in the inverse vector is not that it was invented, but the output of projection of the inverse vector on the coordinate axis. Thanks to them, it was possible to solve unsolvable problems in classical theoretical mechanics. This is shown in examples № 7 and 9. Using the cross product of vectors and the inverse vector, we essentially obtain vector division.
Dear mathematicians, I did not really want to create this work. I understood that she would force to review a lot of scientific works and cause a wave of indignation. But the truth is that science must be truthful, and all these discussions are aimed at a better understanding of mathematics, better modeling of physical quantities. On the understanding of the material by students, and not on memorizing an illogical theory.
You probably will have to accept the fact that the theory of vectors will change significantly. It has increased.
By removing new information, you can only slow it down a bit. But create on the English version will already be yourself. If I make new pages, then only in Ukrainian.
Ujin-X (
talk)
17:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, you can immediately delete and Draft:Angular vector Ujin-X ( talk) 17:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
The Kiwix people are working on an offline version of several Wikipedia subsets (based on this Foundation report). It basically would be like the Wikimed App (see here for the Android light version; iOS is in beta, DM me if interested), and the readership would likely be in the Global South (if Wikimed is any indication): people with little to no access to a decent internet connexion but who still would greatly benefit from our content.
What we do is take a snapshot at day D of all articles tagged by the project (minus Biographies) and package it into a compressed zim file that people can access anytime locally (ie once downloaded, no refresh needed). We also do a specific landing page that is more mobile-friendly, and that's when I need your quick input:
Thanks for your feedback! Stephane (Kiwix) ( talk) 12:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The material in the first section of this article, pseudovector, that seems to try to pass for a definition is all handwaving. Can something more precise be added? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This leads to a redirect " Collection (mathematics)", ending in " Collection", but there is no phrase "math" to be found.
Did the deliberate undefinedness within mathematics of "collection" carry over to WP? I hope I did not miss something. Thanks for checking. Purgy ( talk) 15:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi § Request for comment: Should ethnicity of al-Khwarizmi appear in the lead? D.Lazard ( talk) 17:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Posting this here since it would be great if someone could come along and talk about Wikipedia's mathematical culture.
CALL FOR ABSTRACTS (deadline: 30th June 2017)
ENABLING MATHEMATICAL CULTURES, University of Oxford, 5th-7th December 2017
This workshop celebrates the completion of the EPSRC-funded project “Social Machines of Mathematics”, led by Professor Ursula Martin at the University of Oxford. We will present research arising from the project, and bring together interested researchers who want to build upon and complement our work. We invite interested researchers from a broad range of fields, including: Computer Science, Philosophy, Sociology, History of Mathematics and Science, Argumentation theory, and Mathematics Education. Through such a diverse mix of disciplines we aim to foster new insights, perspectives and conversations around the theme of Enabling Mathematical Cultures.
Our intention is to build upon previous events in the “Mathematical Cultures” series. These conferences explored diverse topics concerning the socio-cultural, historical and philosophical aspects of mathematics. Our workshop will, likewise, explore the social nature of mathematical knowledge production, through analysis of historical and contemporary examples of mathematical practice. Our specific focus will be on how social, technological and conceptual tools are developed and transmitted, so as to enable participation in mathematics, as well as the sharing and construction of group knowledge in mathematics. In particular, we are interested in the way online mathematics, such as exhibited by the Polymath Projects, MathOverflow and the ArXiv, enable and affect the mathematical interactions and cultures.
We hereby invite the submission of abstracts of up to 500 words for papers to be presented in approximately 30 minutes (plus 10 minutes Q+A). The Enabling Mathematical Cultures workshop will have space on Days 2 and 3 of the meeting for a number of accepted talks addressing the themes of social machines of mathematics, mathematical collaboration, mathematical practices, ethnographic or sociological studies of mathematics, computer-assisted proving, and argumentation theory as applied in the mathematical realm. Please send your abstracts to Fenner.Tanswell@Gmail.com by the deadline of the 30th June 2017.
The event takes place in the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford on 5th, 6th and 7th December 2017, with a dinner on 5th December and an informal supper on 6th December.
The focus of Day 1 will be on success, failure and impact of foundational research with an emphasis on history and long term development. Days 2 and 3 will focus on studies of contemporary and prospective mathematical cultures from sociological, philosophical, educational and computational perspectives.
Confirmed speakers include: Andrew Aberdein, Michael Barany, Alan Bundy, Joe Corneli, Matthew Inglis, Lorenzo Lane, Ursula Martin, Dave Murray-Rust, Alison Pease and Fenner Tanswell.
Organising Committee: Ursula Martin, Joe Corneli, Lorenzo Lane, Fenner Tanswell, Sarah Baldwin, Brendan Larvor, Benedikt Loewe, Alison Pease
Further information will be added to the website at https://enablingmaths.wordpress.com
Previous "Mathematical Cultures" events can be found here: https://sites.google.com/site/mathematicalcultures/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arided ( talk • contribs)
Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 15:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Expert mathematical help is needed to disambiguate links to Lagrangian in the following articles:
Thanks! bd2412 T 18:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Should complex number be divided into eight articles? And if so, are there competent volunteers willing to write the resulting eight articles? Opine at Talk:Complex number#Proposal: multi-way split. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 01:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a contentious move request afoot at Talk:Tensor#Requested move 25 October 2017. Please opine there. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a contentious discussion on Talk:E6 (mathematics) about illustrations that perhaps other users would like to weigh in on. -- JBL ( talk) 00:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Science and math articles folowing an article Wikipedia’s Science Articles Are Elitist. People might like to contribute. -- Salix alba ( talk): 11:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I basically agree with Boris Tsirelson as well and the WMF has other projects for the textbook approach, namely Wikiversity and Wikibooks. Those can be used for that purpose and good pieces in Wikibooks and Wikiversity can be linked in the related WP articles.
Having said that however, I do think that some math articles tend to be unnecessarily complicated for wider audiences, in particular if they start off with overly generalized or abstract versions of a particular math topic. Imho math articles should aim for starting off its topic with the least abstract/least general treatment of subject that can commonly can be found in reputable literature and only after that move on to more abstract or generalized treatments of that subject. That assures that the first sentences of the lead as well as the first sections of article are readable and useful to larger audiences than just the "elite few".-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 11:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I don't have much to add to the above. But one aspect that exasperates the situation is that we are generally not allowed to make simplifying assumptions. For example, in algebraic geometry, sometimes, one can give simple definitions if one knows a variety is a quasi-projective variety. Similarly some expositions become obscure or obtuse because we are not assuming the base field has characteristic zero. If Wikipedia's mission is to provide learning materials, it might be a good idea to avoid some technicalities by making simplifying assumptions. Since our concerns here are to provide references, I don't know what can be done to the view that pedagogy and accessibility are secondary to presenting precise facts. -- Taku ( talk) 03:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
See Vopěnka's_principle#Definition, the phrase "Every subfunctor of an accessible functor is accessible" marks "accessible functor" with a hyperlink to the wiki page Accessible_category. Unfortunately accessible functors are not mentioned there. Also unfortunately I do not know enough about accessible functors to add information about them. -- 109.172.129.80 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) 14:23, 24 October 2017
See Talk:Reciprocal_rule. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Currently the dualizing complex for wikipedia directs to the Verdier duality page. This is partially correct since this could also redirect to the Coherent duality page. Can someone create a disambiguation page for these two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username6330 ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I am not a mathematician, but my friend is. The most current version of the Wikipedia article on Erdős–Turán conjecture states that it remains unsolved. Here is a published article written by my friend Dr. Martin Helm back in 1993, which might change this. I would love an expert comment on this. Thank you very much!
Best regards, Aleksandr — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocAZ ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
User Ujin-X ( contributions) has been making a number of edits related to vectors, broadly construed; all of it has the taste of crankery (trying to get direction vector deleted, adding what looks like invented terminology to articles, etc.). Perhaps this could use a few more eyes. -- JBL ( talk) 12:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Dear judges, I thank you for your attention to my person, but in Wikipedia I do not discuss myself, but the result of scientific achievement in the theory of vectors. I'm sorry to see that many of you, without bothering to read the article "Angular vectors in the theory of vectors", delete or misinterpret new terms and definitions.
All these terms (angular vector, rectilinear vector, inverse vector, vector division) have appeared, because in the existing theory of vectors there are a number of problems.
The angular vector has appeared, since Euclidean vectors (direction vectors) can not correctly display angular physical quantities (angular velocity, torque, etc.) in the coordinate system. A rotating ball can not have a straight rectilinear direction.
With the advent of the term angular vector, it becomes necessary to distinguish it from the Euclidean vector, so it is logical to call it rectilinear vector, it has always been that way.
The term inverse vector appeared in the process of solving a problem with a cross product of vectors, when one of them is represented as a unit divided by a vector. The most valuable thing in the inverse vector is not that it was invented, but the output of projection of the inverse vector on the coordinate axis. Thanks to them, it was possible to solve unsolvable problems in classical theoretical mechanics. This is shown in examples № 7 and 9. Using the cross product of vectors and the inverse vector, we essentially obtain vector division.
Dear mathematicians, I did not really want to create this work. I understood that she would force to review a lot of scientific works and cause a wave of indignation. But the truth is that science must be truthful, and all these discussions are aimed at a better understanding of mathematics, better modeling of physical quantities. On the understanding of the material by students, and not on memorizing an illogical theory.
You probably will have to accept the fact that the theory of vectors will change significantly. It has increased.
By removing new information, you can only slow it down a bit. But create on the English version will already be yourself. If I make new pages, then only in Ukrainian.
Ujin-X (
talk)
17:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
By the way, you can immediately delete and Draft:Angular vector Ujin-X ( talk) 17:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
The Kiwix people are working on an offline version of several Wikipedia subsets (based on this Foundation report). It basically would be like the Wikimed App (see here for the Android light version; iOS is in beta, DM me if interested), and the readership would likely be in the Global South (if Wikimed is any indication): people with little to no access to a decent internet connexion but who still would greatly benefit from our content.
What we do is take a snapshot at day D of all articles tagged by the project (minus Biographies) and package it into a compressed zim file that people can access anytime locally (ie once downloaded, no refresh needed). We also do a specific landing page that is more mobile-friendly, and that's when I need your quick input:
Thanks for your feedback! Stephane (Kiwix) ( talk) 12:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The material in the first section of this article, pseudovector, that seems to try to pass for a definition is all handwaving. Can something more precise be added? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This leads to a redirect " Collection (mathematics)", ending in " Collection", but there is no phrase "math" to be found.
Did the deliberate undefinedness within mathematics of "collection" carry over to WP? I hope I did not miss something. Thanks for checking. Purgy ( talk) 15:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
See Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi § Request for comment: Should ethnicity of al-Khwarizmi appear in the lead? D.Lazard ( talk) 17:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Posting this here since it would be great if someone could come along and talk about Wikipedia's mathematical culture.
CALL FOR ABSTRACTS (deadline: 30th June 2017)
ENABLING MATHEMATICAL CULTURES, University of Oxford, 5th-7th December 2017
This workshop celebrates the completion of the EPSRC-funded project “Social Machines of Mathematics”, led by Professor Ursula Martin at the University of Oxford. We will present research arising from the project, and bring together interested researchers who want to build upon and complement our work. We invite interested researchers from a broad range of fields, including: Computer Science, Philosophy, Sociology, History of Mathematics and Science, Argumentation theory, and Mathematics Education. Through such a diverse mix of disciplines we aim to foster new insights, perspectives and conversations around the theme of Enabling Mathematical Cultures.
Our intention is to build upon previous events in the “Mathematical Cultures” series. These conferences explored diverse topics concerning the socio-cultural, historical and philosophical aspects of mathematics. Our workshop will, likewise, explore the social nature of mathematical knowledge production, through analysis of historical and contemporary examples of mathematical practice. Our specific focus will be on how social, technological and conceptual tools are developed and transmitted, so as to enable participation in mathematics, as well as the sharing and construction of group knowledge in mathematics. In particular, we are interested in the way online mathematics, such as exhibited by the Polymath Projects, MathOverflow and the ArXiv, enable and affect the mathematical interactions and cultures.
We hereby invite the submission of abstracts of up to 500 words for papers to be presented in approximately 30 minutes (plus 10 minutes Q+A). The Enabling Mathematical Cultures workshop will have space on Days 2 and 3 of the meeting for a number of accepted talks addressing the themes of social machines of mathematics, mathematical collaboration, mathematical practices, ethnographic or sociological studies of mathematics, computer-assisted proving, and argumentation theory as applied in the mathematical realm. Please send your abstracts to Fenner.Tanswell@Gmail.com by the deadline of the 30th June 2017.
The event takes place in the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford on 5th, 6th and 7th December 2017, with a dinner on 5th December and an informal supper on 6th December.
The focus of Day 1 will be on success, failure and impact of foundational research with an emphasis on history and long term development. Days 2 and 3 will focus on studies of contemporary and prospective mathematical cultures from sociological, philosophical, educational and computational perspectives.
Confirmed speakers include: Andrew Aberdein, Michael Barany, Alan Bundy, Joe Corneli, Matthew Inglis, Lorenzo Lane, Ursula Martin, Dave Murray-Rust, Alison Pease and Fenner Tanswell.
Organising Committee: Ursula Martin, Joe Corneli, Lorenzo Lane, Fenner Tanswell, Sarah Baldwin, Brendan Larvor, Benedikt Loewe, Alison Pease
Further information will be added to the website at https://enablingmaths.wordpress.com
Previous "Mathematical Cultures" events can be found here: https://sites.google.com/site/mathematicalcultures/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arided ( talk • contribs)
Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 15:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Expert mathematical help is needed to disambiguate links to Lagrangian in the following articles:
Thanks! bd2412 T 18:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Should complex number be divided into eight articles? And if so, are there competent volunteers willing to write the resulting eight articles? Opine at Talk:Complex number#Proposal: multi-way split. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 01:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a contentious move request afoot at Talk:Tensor#Requested move 25 October 2017. Please opine there. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a contentious discussion on Talk:E6 (mathematics) about illustrations that perhaps other users would like to weigh in on. -- JBL ( talk) 00:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Science and math articles folowing an article Wikipedia’s Science Articles Are Elitist. People might like to contribute. -- Salix alba ( talk): 11:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I basically agree with Boris Tsirelson as well and the WMF has other projects for the textbook approach, namely Wikiversity and Wikibooks. Those can be used for that purpose and good pieces in Wikibooks and Wikiversity can be linked in the related WP articles.
Having said that however, I do think that some math articles tend to be unnecessarily complicated for wider audiences, in particular if they start off with overly generalized or abstract versions of a particular math topic. Imho math articles should aim for starting off its topic with the least abstract/least general treatment of subject that can commonly can be found in reputable literature and only after that move on to more abstract or generalized treatments of that subject. That assures that the first sentences of the lead as well as the first sections of article are readable and useful to larger audiences than just the "elite few".-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 11:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I don't have much to add to the above. But one aspect that exasperates the situation is that we are generally not allowed to make simplifying assumptions. For example, in algebraic geometry, sometimes, one can give simple definitions if one knows a variety is a quasi-projective variety. Similarly some expositions become obscure or obtuse because we are not assuming the base field has characteristic zero. If Wikipedia's mission is to provide learning materials, it might be a good idea to avoid some technicalities by making simplifying assumptions. Since our concerns here are to provide references, I don't know what can be done to the view that pedagogy and accessibility are secondary to presenting precise facts. -- Taku ( talk) 03:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
See Vopěnka's_principle#Definition, the phrase "Every subfunctor of an accessible functor is accessible" marks "accessible functor" with a hyperlink to the wiki page Accessible_category. Unfortunately accessible functors are not mentioned there. Also unfortunately I do not know enough about accessible functors to add information about them. -- 109.172.129.80 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) 14:23, 24 October 2017