Hi! I am revising the files uploaded for Wiki Science Competition 2017 and I have noticed this one. Such picture of the interior of a small domen will never be a finalist of course, but I am trying to improve its categorization and description like I did with other ones. It has a shape of a some regular solid, it could be the sort of image it is used in a school text book to show how geometry appears in real life, for example.
So, if you had to put a specific category related to a polyhedric shape, which one would it be in your opinion? thank you in advance.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 12:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
A Request-for-Comment has been opened at Talk:209 (number) which may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments and concerns are welcome. Please join in the discussion here. Derek M ( talk) 23:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I just ran across this article. Is that a thing? I can't seem to find much in google or google scholar that isn't authored by the user, who apparently admits COI, or isn't simply copied wiki content or print-on-demand of wiki content. There was also a discussion in the nLab forum inquiring about the notability of the topic. Is this too OR for our taste? It doesn't seem like more than one or two people have written about it. Rschwieb ( talk) 14:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Could someone cast a glance over Draft:Spread(Intuitionism) and see at what level of readiness for mainspace it is. Many thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Strangely, I did not find any result of the form "derivative of the limit is equal to the limit of derivatives whenever...". Neither in real analysis nor in complex analysis. Are they really not there on Wikipedia, or did I look for them in the wrong places? (I do not mean termwise differentiation of a power series, this is too special.) Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 18:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The new article titled Topological geometry, if indeed it ought to exist, could certainly use some work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The IP 73.46.49.164 insists to link Interconnectedness, an article, certainly not covered by mathematical ideas, within the article Chaos theory, which has an explicit hat note, guiding to alternatives to mathematical treatment via a disambiguation page, and is of interest for WikiProject Mathematics. For to me not obvious reasons the article is also tagged with being of interest for WikiProject Religion, but I am unsure, if this should be discussed at all, and if yes, where.
I did discuss this linking already at the TP, but the IP started to insert this link again, without discussing, just claiming it were correct. Within this second effort I already reverted twice and asked for discussion again, but now I want to bring the situation there to the awareness of the project. Purgy ( talk) 08:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Will someone please review Draft:Multivariate quadratic random number generator and advise whether it should be accepted as an article? Please remember that the acceptance criterion is not whether the draft is a Good Article, but only whether it is mathematically sound, and whether it is worth keeping as an article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
In several articles, including Exact sequence, Cokernel, Snake lemma, and others, user Cedar101 has replaced, for exact sequences, the standard markup <math> by <ce> (or some variants of it), which is a markup with a uncommon syntax that he has implemented. The resulting rendering is correct, but the resulting source code in no more latex but a language that is unreadable for most of us. I have reverted him once, but, for avoiding edit warring, a consensus is needed about the use of this markup in mathematics. My opinion is that the use of <ce> is WP:disruptive editing, as it makes very time consuming to modify the involved exact sequences. But this is only my opinion, and a consensus is needed in favor or against the following assertion
The use in mathematics of <ce>, or of any of its variants is disruptive editing.
D.Lazard ( talk) 10:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
<ce>
for things which are not chemical equations is semantically incorrect, and should be replaced by the proper <math>
syntax.
Helder 11:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)I invite any interested editors to join this discussion about the page Linear differential equation. Loraof ( talk) 17:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
David Eppstein has recently nominated Prime number for a Good Article. I will begin reviewing the article in the next few days, but more reviewers are more than welcome! Leave your review at Talk:Prime_number/GA1. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 14:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I have for a long time thought that wikipedia's article on stokes' theorem was inadequate. The first equation of the article is completely incomprehensible to me in terms of applying it to an example. If you know anything about multivariable calculus or vector calculus please help! Brian Everlasting ( talk) 20:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Please help to review Draft:Binary Tiling a very brief draft at AFC. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 16:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to
Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons.
New:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 14:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
A hundred or more pages on maths-related topics link to, and have been tagged as linking to, DAB pages. Such links are of no use to anyone, especially our readers. They also get picked up by User:DPL bot for violating WP:INTDAB. I gave up maths when they started writing circles on the integral signs - which means that I know enough not to know the answer, and also enough not to guess. Can any expert help with the {{ disambiguation needed}} tags on these pages, please, for starters?
If you do help solve one of those issues: take off the {{ dn}} tag in the article, and add a {{ done}} tick on this page. As I said, there are a hundred-plus others – I have seen them before, I will see them again on my routine trawls though Disambiguation pages with links, and I can post them in this WikiProject. You will likely get no thanks unless another WP:DPL member notices – but, in the end, all that matters is getting this encyclopaedia right. Narky Blert ( talk) 03:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The next batch of problems which I hope that experts in this WikiProject may be able to solve. As before, search for "disam" in the text as displayed; and if you make a fix, remove the {{ dn}} tag and add {{ done}} here:
Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 22:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Besides
I know nothing about Arakelov, there are too many names of almost equal classes of connections around for my knowledge, and the linguistics might be simply off track. Just FYI. Purgy ( talk) 08:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
My next batch of articles which contain {{ disambiguation needed}} tags needing expert attention:
As usual: thanks in advance, and mark any problem which I have listed here and which you have solved as {{ done}}. Narky Blert ( talk) 02:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, there's a discussion at User talk:Loraof#Empirical distribution function about the graph used in Empirical distribution function. nagual design 14:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I have added the {{ math rating}} banner to the new article Fiber product of schemes, and I have a problem with the parameter "field": is this "algebra" or "geometry"? As this problem occurs for many articles, it would be better to add the possibility of "field = algebraic geometry". Could someone do that? D.Lazard ( talk) 10:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
(unindent) What about the articles which (clearly) belong to algebraic geometry, will they stay in geometry or algebra or will someone move them systematically to this new category? Maybe someone could also consult Geometry guy who once invested a lot of work into the grading scheme and categorization of the articles; he might have some suggestions based on his experience with this work. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 22:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Integer sequence#Definable sequences. -- Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 09:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Could someone with graphing skills please convert this table into a graph? The graph can be seen here (put there by another editor). Thanks. Loraof ( talk) 20:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion that can use the inputs from a third party, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bivariant theory -- Taku ( talk) 03:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
What about the "slow motion edit warring" at Real number#In physics? "This approach removes the real number system from its foundational role in physics", really? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: There's some weird parsing error that showed up when I added <math> tags in a discussion below. Please go to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) and search for "Rfc: Change default <math> to be inline". -- Trovatore ( talk) 02:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on the proposal. Thank you for your attention.--
Debenben (
talk) 23:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I know zero about math academic stuff, so would like to draw the attention of this WP to a draft under review: Draft:Walks on ordinals.
There are allegations that the submitter is attempting to popularize a fringe mathematical theory, which the submitter denies. Could someone more expert take a look at the draft? You can post and sign comments at the top of the draft page itself rather than its Talk, for ease of reading. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 22:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
It is definitely not a "fringe theory", but JR is correct that it's hard to understand from the draft exactly what is being discussed. I think there's a typo in this bit:
which should read
If you understand "ladder systems" (which I really ought to, having spent a year in Toronto, but unfortunately I never really sat down and did the work to figure them out), then I think you might be able to make sense of the text, after fixing the typo. I am not sure what the curvy arrows are about, but again, they might make sense to people who know ladder systems. -- Trovatore ( talk) 02:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
For reference: ladder systems are defined (among other places) in Section 3 of
this paper. --
Trovatore (
talk) 02:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Here is another deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Distributional calculus. -- Taku ( talk) 20:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Category:Pseudoconvex minimization and 2 related categories, all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm opening this new section so as not to get in the way of archiving #Links to DAB pages. As before, (1) search for "disam" in the article, (2) mark any problems you have solved as {{ done}}, and (3) thanks in advance.
I hope that within a month I will have found and posted here every maths article which links to a DAB page – and, more importantly, that you experts will have solved those problems for the benefit of our readers. I find 'em, you fix 'em – this is going well. Yrs, Narky Blert ( talk) 22:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Here are some new MfD discussions that might interest the members of the project.
— Taku ( talk) 09:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
One more
— Taku ( talk) 07:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Unproductive discussion
|
---|
|
One more:
– Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 18:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how many people here use the mobile app, but it turns out that it puts helpful little snippets of text along with article titles. These are currently hosted on Wikidata. This is problematic, in part because changes to Wikidata don't show up on Wikipedians' watchlists.
For this and other reasons, the WMF has decided to add "short descriptions" to Wikipedia articles, which will be embedded in the source of the article itself. As I understand it, the plan is that every single article will be expected to have a short description. The description is allowed to be blank, though I'm not sure why you'd want it to be.
See Wikipedia:Short description and Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions for more detailed information.
The descriptions are really intended to be short. Making a long speech about a subject is not very useful in this context. The suggested limit is 40 characters, though it's a "soft limit" — if we can't get anything useful in 40 characters, we're allowed to go over.
Some thoughts:
OK, I've yammered on long enough here. -- Trovatore ( talk) 22:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Additional thought for possibly including
I've just added a ninth section to Talk:Cyclic number, I wouldn't normally post such a thing so quickly at a Wikiproject, but that talkpage has an unusual number of open and ancient queries which hopefully will be of interest here. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I have recently created (it existed as a dab page) Computational complexity. I need the help of the community on two points.
D.Lazard ( talk) 09:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Excellent list created by Taku here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages Thank-you. Legacypac ( talk) 18:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Here are some MfD discussions that might interest the members of the project.
— Taku ( talk) 11:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Somehow related, I do have a proposal: can this project maintain the list of all math-related pages in the draftspace? One of the problems is that the draftspace is somehow invisible to the members of this project (and one of the reasons for the above MfDs is, ostensibly, to bring some attention to those drafts). Having such a list helps address this concern. — Taku ( talk) 19:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't see how a list would hurt. I've put work into several of these drafts when my attention was called to them, and I've seen at least one other editor do the same. Several drafts have been promoted to main space as a result. And if we had the full list, we could get a better sense of how many are three-word fragments that might as well be deleted, how many only need a little work to become decent main-space stubs, how many could be merged into existing articles, etc. At worst, a list would be one more thing for people who don't care to ignore. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a move request at Talk:Surface (mathematics) and a WP:MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Surface. Both may interest members of this project. D.Lazard ( talk) 20:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The article Hidden Markov model has been nominated for GA, and is now the second oldest unreviewed article there; it was nominated in June 2017, over eight months ago. I have been doing GA reviewing recently, including some maths articles, but would like to get someone with deeper mathematical knowledge to review this -- my maths degree is now nearly thirty years old, and this is not a topic I know anything about. Would someone here be willing to help out by reviewing the article? If someone is interested but not knowledgeable about GA reviewing I'd be glad to help out with that side of things. Thanks for any help. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
(I didn't start this draft). Is this notable? -- Taku ( talk) 23:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a wrong redirect. The draft was/is about a level structure in algebraic geometry. Can someone correct it? (I can't do it myself without risking getting an indefinite ban from Wikipedia.) -- Taku ( talk)
In fact, it seems I will be indef-ban after all. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite_community_ban_for_TakuyaMurata. (I know I'm not completely blameless but still.) -- Taku ( talk) 01:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
This discussion is difficult to understand. Apparently, Draft:Level structure is a draft created in June 2015 by Taku. It has be wrongly redirected by Hasteur in August 2017. It is only yesterday that Taku reverted this wrong redirect. This started an edit war between Taku and Hasteur, until Taku moved the draft to the main space with the name Level structure (algebraic geometry). The edit war continued about maintenance tags, this time, because Hasteur insisted to put tags about issues that are common with almost all stubs (otherwise, these would not be stubs) and thus duplicate the stub tag. After having clarified the history, I see two remaining issues:
This article was at one time a draft, which was copied into mainspace several years ago but has never been assessed. It seems to me that it needs more independent references, and may have been a neologism at the time it was created. Can someone with a math background and access to academic journals fix it up and/or tag it appropriately? Thanks.— Anne Delong ( talk) 10:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
On a related note, what about the article Christina Sormani? It has been prodded twice but survives. Is the topic notable? Mgnbar ( talk) 00:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I've seen the phrase "scheme theory" used on wikipedia several times (e.g. in the current version of the article Main theorem of the elimination theory), and while the meaning of this term is clear, I don't think it's a conventional phrase. As more or less an algebraic geometer, I find it very quaint and nonstandard. Only the adjective "scheme-theoretic" seems to be commonly used. To support the feeling let me remark that, unlike group theory, representation theory, number theory and others, books introducing schemes are (almost?) never titled "scheme theory". Here are some popular books covering schemes ( [4]):
To follow the usage in the literature, I would replace "scheme theory" by "modern algebraic geometry", but I think D.Lazard objects to this choice, so maybe "the language of schemes" is an OK replacement. Dpirozhkov ( talk) 16:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
(I'm late to the party but here is my take).
-- Taku ( talk) 00:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Could someone that understands this let us know if this AfC draft is any good? Legacypac ( talk) 07:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Category:Unary operations has been nominated for possible deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a lot of math in Draft:Data-driven control systems. Is this page ok for mainspace? Legacypac ( talk) 00:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard which could benefit from input from editors with mathematics knowledge. Please see the discussion for details. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 12:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The new article titled Stephens' constant is something of mess. It doesn't have a proper introductory section nor a proper opening sentence, nor does does it say enough to make it clear why the topic is notable. And it could use copy-editing of a number of different sorts. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I recently had a look at the page on Shinichi Mochizuki's Inter-universal Teichmüller theory and found it to have several problems. First it is far from having a neutral point of view (the most flagrant example of this being the complete omission of the fact that very few mathematicians accept Mochizuki's idea to say the least, as illustrated for example by this blog post: https://galoisrepresentations.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/the-abc-conjecture-has-still-not-been-proved/ and the discussion following it). Second (perhaps this point is more my personal impression) it has no discernable mathematical content and is basically useless as an introduction to the theory as far as I am concerned.
I think that the page as it stands should not exist on Wikipedia. On the other hand it seems to me that mentioning IUT on Wikipedia is important, and I'd like to suggest the following to take care of this in what I believe is a better way:
I think this is a rather touchy subject (witness some discussions on blog comments, eg. here: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9871) and this is why a discussion here might be needed. jraimbau ( talk) 15:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Primefac perhaps some page protection is in order, like 30/500 to weekld out all the SPAs noted. Legacypac ( talk) 00:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I have edited the page on abc to better reflect the fact that Mochizuki's work is currently not accepted as providing a proof of the conjecture. The main reference is the Persiflage blog post, including comments by Brian Conrad, which is maybe not ideal but I think this is the best quality source on the topic. I will try to revise the IUT page soon (after thinking a bit more it seems not to be the better idea to include it into S.M.'s page). jraimbau ( talk) 13:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Should there be a page titled Odometer (ergodic theory)?
There is now a page titled Markov odometer, which could probably use some work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Chadyoung ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding ridiculous "analogies" to mathematics and physics articles. Some of these are vaguely relevant, but rather useless (e.g., this). Others are clearly absurd (e.g., this and this). And others still seem to be purely vandalism (e.g., this). I'm not sure if this is subtle trolling, or just very poor judgement. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 17:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Robert Langlands is the 2018 winner of the prestigious Abel Prize and his article is nominated to be displayed on the main page. Please could someone more experienced with mathematics articles take a look to fix "Research section" in his article or his Langlands program which also needs attentions. Suggestion is also welcomed in the talkpage. – Ammarpad ( talk) 04:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:Teahouse#Separate language sets where the OP has asked whether the Wikidata interlanguage links for articles about cubic/quartic functions and equations respectively should be merged, are they separate topics or not? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I have made a proposal for splitting-off the complex-algebraic-geometry-related section of Hodge theory to a separate article at Talk:Hodge theory#Split off Hodge theory for complex projective varieties. Opinions from the editors who might have opinions on the matter are needed. -- Taku ( talk) 23:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Michael Hardy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Reddwarf2956 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just deleted 3 recursive definition formulas for very nontrivially defined constants conjectured to be transcendent irrational. Also in other articles about such hard to understand numbers like Feigenbaum constants explicit definition terms could clarify much furtherly and help classifying them. E.g. also in substance articles multiple chemical structure representations are often available so if they can be directly derived from a given defining explanation then why not specifying them explicitly? -- LKreissig ( talk) 19:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@ LKreissig: At this point you really need to explain in some comprehensible way what the things you added mean. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Is this a notable topic? Legacypac ( talk) 19:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I visit en.wp very seldom, so I leave you discuss this between yourselves : are external links to ( specifically related subpages of) mathcurve appropriate in pages about curves, or not ? (I tried to convince one of you they are, but he disagrees). Anne Bauval ( talk) 18:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Does not obvioisly meet PROF unless his work is notable. Reads a little spam like to me. Comments to the Draft talk page please Legacypac ( talk) 23:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Discussion here. -- JBL ( talk) 02:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
We plan to complete replacing Tidy with a different tool on all wikis by end-June. As part of this, we have identified pages that need some markup fixed. This is exposed by the Linter extension via the Special:LintErrors page. Only linter issues in the high-priority categories need to be addressed. It is sufficient to prioritize articles for now.
One of the linter categories is the
mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting category. You can see the
list of linter issues in the Article namespace here. Of those, there are a subset of issues that primarily affect math and other pages that use math. The effects can be particularly important here as
this example demonstrates. The rendering on the left is what you see on the wiki right now. The rendering on the right is what it will change to when Tidy is replaced. Notice how r kn = kn + 1 has changed to r kn = kn + 1. This is because the quotes are improperly nested in the <sub>
tag and needs to be fixed to reflect the intended rendering.
The edit links
in this listing of article namespace html5-misnesting errors shows you the exact malformed wikitext. My recommendation is to fix pages where the <sub>
and <sup
tags are shown as being misnested. I am also happy to give you a separate list of pages where sub and sup tags are misnested (about ~300 in all). Let me know if you have any questions.
SSastry (WMF) ( talk) 21:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
''x<sub>i</sub>''
. Though, in this case, it might be better to use {{
var}}. --
Izno (
talk) 00:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
<cite>
tag? I've never seen that before and I don't know what it's supposed to be doing. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 00:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
<cite>
is supposed to surround the titles of cited references. Its use there does not fit that description, and it does not appear to make a visible difference in the article. I think it can safely be removed. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 01:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Some of these seem not directly fixable; for example, in
Elias M. Stein, the problem is the following:
{{Infobox scientist|
...
| thesis_title = Linear Operators on L<sup>''p''</sup> Spaces | ... }}
Presumably, what's going on is that the template slaps '' ... '' around the title of the thesis. (And indeed the effect in the infobox there is funny: the p is not italicized.) But it is not clear to me what the "right" way to deal with this is. (There are also examples like
Georgia Benkart, where the problem is the title field in the cite book template.) --
JBL (
talk) 20:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
thesis_title = Linear Operators on L''<sup>p</sup>'' Spaces
seems to work. The first '' end the italics, before the <sup> and the second '' starts it again after the </sup> meaning the start and end of italics are not either side of a tag. You can check the new render behaviour by adding action=parsermigration-edit
to the url. E.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Elias_M._Stein&action=parsermigration-edit --
Salix alba (
talk): 00:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Just a gentle ping. I noticed that the sub-tag affected pages has not moved in over a week and is at 57 entries. Same with sup-tag affected pages that is at 161 entries. Another burst of fixing might bring the former to zero. SSastry (WMF) ( talk) 17:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 14:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Algebraic Geometry (journal) has been proposed for deletion by Randykitty, one of the regular editors on articles about academic journals. It looks to me like a legitimate new journal, but possibly one that is too new to pass WP:NJournals. Anyway, if you disagree with this proposal (and especially if you can find third-party publications about this journal that might increase its apparent notability) please feel free to unprod. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
A move request is ongoing at Talk:Symmetric graph#Requested move 8 April 2018, but it has little participation. Input would be appreciated. Dekimasu よ! 12:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The article Pseudomathematics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This uncited article is, so far as it goes, largely a piece of original research. The term "pseudomathematics" rarely crops up, and when it does it's used as a short hand way of saying that conventional mathematical techniques have been misused or misapplied. An example would be the backtest overfitting of financial data modelling, where the prefix "pseudo" has the same general meaning as it does in "pseudo-democracy". In other words, there is no field of endeavour called "pseudomathematics".
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Eric
Corbett 01:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. There is a dispute at Talk:Proportion that can use attention from the members of the project. —- Taku ( talk) 21:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
FYI, I've added a listing at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 26#Modern Mathematics. Further comments are welcome. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 03:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
About " Schröder–Bernstein theorem", [6], [7], [8], I wonder, how do we feel about excluded middle? Should its use be noticed always, or sometimes, or never, or what? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 11:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I have created a short new article titled Lévy–Steinitz theorem. The theorem states this:
I found that in the List of permutation topics there was no section on rearrangements of series, and I created one, titled Mathematical analysis, which now lists, among other things, this theorem.
I have added links to the new article from the following articles:
I have also created the following redirect pages:
(I haven't yet created redirects with a capital "T"; probably I'll do that soon if no one else does it first.)
So now:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
While we have good articles on Newton's method and Halley's method, our article on the more general Householder's methods is inadequate. In particular, there is no justification given for the claim that the higher order Householder's methods have higher order convergence to a simple root. Without that, I cannot determine what value of K is appropriate and thus how good or bad the method is in particular applications. JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Please could I have an opinion on Draft:Weyl Sequence which I am reviewing at AfC? Should it be moved to mainspace, or is it a duplication of any of these? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 12:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely. I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found some high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject.
What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.
This list is all "misnested tags". See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the {{ cot}} template. My first guess is that this template adds span tags, which don't work over multiple paragraphs. The second column shows some additional information about the error (please let me know if that's useful additional information).
Note that the highlighting from the lintid code won't work reliably after the article has been edited, so for pages with multiple errors, it's best to try to fix them all at once. For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 17:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
{{Citation | title = The Apéry's constant: {{math|ζ''(3)''}} }}
. It looks like the problem goes away if you remove the italics from math template, which is inside an already-italicized title field.
Whatamidoing (WMF) (
talk) 19:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out what is going on, what that IP editor from Taiwan has been doing the last few months (also on the talk page). Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 21:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if somebody would be kind enough to have a look at the above draft, which is currently sitting at Articles for creation. My question is whether it has sufficient Notability/content to warrant its own article, or whether the content could/should be merged in to the existing article, Sersic profile? Any comments gratefully received. If anybody who looks at it happens to be an Afc reviewer, they can, of course, Accept it as an article should it be warranted. Best regards. KJP1 ( talk) 05:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The article List of mathematical identities is suspiciously short. May anyone help expanding it? -- MaoGo ( talk) 23:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to clean up the article G-structure on a manifold. Is the proposal here Talk:G-structure_on_a_manifold#Merge_cleanup_proposal ok? -- TurionTzukosson ( talk) 10:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Over the past few months, I've added support for both Bluebook abbreviations (in law), and MEDLINE abbreviations (in medicine) to {{ Infobox journal}} and to the WP:JCW compilation. What's the standard, so to speak, for abbreviations in mathematics? MathSciNet? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason for abbreviating names of journals does not apply to Wikipedia, but it has been used out of habit. I prefer not to abbreviate them. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Alright, {{
Infobox journal}} now supports |mathscinet=
for when the abbreviations differ from the ISO 4 one. See
Annals of Mathematics. The infobox will prompt you to create redirects when you add the relevant abbreviation, just like it does for the ISO 4 one.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 13:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Please comment above. This concerns the usage of MathSciNet abbreviations in {{ infobox journal}}. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at Draft:Non-manifold topology and give a review. It's a technical article that really requires a SME to evaluate. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I've done some edits to make it conform to some basic Wikipedia conventions, but I haven't addressed the actual content. It contains this sentence:
So an adjective is defined as a verb? Obviously someone isn't all that great at writing complete sentences. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I think about making two kinds of related edits to some standard functions. I prefer to ask your opinion in order to be sure not to lose my time. Those edits are related to the presentations of some of the standard mathematical functions. Complex one and real ones.
Firstly, I think that Category:Visualization_(graphic) should have a subcategory «mathematical function representation». Indeed, when I look at a page such as Heat map and want to learn more about visualization of functions, I do expect to find pages like Domain coloring. But I do not expect to find IEEE Visualization. Both of those pages have category "Visualization_(graphic)". I guess this means that heat map and domain coloring should have a more precise category. This category would also include surface plot e.g.
By the way. Do anyone know if there is a «surface plot» somewhere on wikipedia. One which consider representing a function by plotting its surface. Becase currently, surface plot consider only radar related plot. And so, Heat map link to surface plot is probably wrong, however I do not know how to correct this link. I would create the page if you tell me that it does not exists yet.
Which lead me to my second point. What do you think about having a infobox for standard functions. This v would, as far as possible, contains the representation of the function using as many visualization technic as possible. (It would not be hard to generate them using some mathematical library. So there are no copyright problem to have them). I guess that the infobox should also contain standard information, such as the domain of definition (or the more standard one, e.g. for square root and log, where many domain can be chosen), its derivative (or jacobian), its antirderivative, the domain on which it is continuous, differentiable, etc...
Of course, some of those informations are already in the page of the functions. But I do believe that having a more standard presentation would help me. Since I guess I'm not alone, I assume it would also help other readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur MILCHIOR ( talk • contribs)
Just to report a strong impression I got here at WP: The acceptance of infoboxes at the valuable real estate at the header of an article might be equivocally. Purgy ( talk) 18:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
A proposal has been submitted to merge Category:Probability journals into Category:Statistics journals. Please add relevant arguments to the discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:John von Neumann#Should_von_Neumann_be_categorized_as_a_combustion_scientist? Paul August ☎ 10:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Kyuko has recently created Category:Jewish mathematicians and added several hundred articles to it (and going strong; the only interruption has been this edit). I do not have any principled opinion about whether this is good or bad, but possibly other editors might. -- JBL ( talk) 13:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
A category called "Jewish mathematicians" must be reserved for those who have explicitly declared their own adherence to Judaism, while a category called "Mathematicians of Jewish descent" can include all those for whom reliable sources indicate Jewish ancestry. See WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Could someone with five minutes of free time and nothing better to do take a look at the history of Join (sigma algebra) and see if the massive trimming down was legitimate? – Uanfala (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
This review page is for review of the nomination of Cantor's first set theory article for the status of a Good article. For instructions for reviewing the article, follow this link.
At this page one sees that this is currently one of four mathematics articles currently nominated for "Good article" status. Writing a review of any of them would be a contribution. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Langley’s Adventitious Angles could use some more eyes. There's a new editor edit-warring to insert what looks like original research to me, but I'd welcome the opinion of other experienced editors. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Should this be moved to mainspace? (or deleted?) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 21:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
We do not appear to have a biography of Michael Rathjen who appears to be an important person in mathematical logic. Please see [11]. JRSpriggs ( talk) 12:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
M22 graph, currently a redirect to Mathieu group M22, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 2#M22 graph because it cause Draft:M22 graph to be declined. Editors who understand these topics are invited to contribute to the linked discussion where their input is likely to be significantly helpful. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The redirect Exceptional curve, which currently targets Exceptional divisor, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 8#Exceptional curve. Input from editors who understand the topic would be of significant benefit - please comment there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
FYI, I started a requested move discussion at Talk:Immanant of a matrix. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 14:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The following are pages moved from the draftspace to mainspace by me:
Since I only skimmed the pages, it is possible that some may not be notable and in that case, they need to be nominated for deletion. (To repeat the above thread, these pages would have been deleted quietly; unfortunately, in current practice (not policy), that pages need some more work means deletion.) —- Taku ( talk) 08:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I find that mathematics is often written in first person in a way that other subjects are not. It's something I like / have gotten used to (or at least is professional in a mathematical context), but I sometimes get told that it creates an inappropriate tone or violates neutral point of view policies.
Do we have a consensus on what I would assume is something that's been discussed here before? I would like to nominate Group testing for featured article (eventually), so I want to clear up any potential issues. – ♫CheChe♫ talk 11:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I used to occasionally come across notices at the top of articles on mathematics saying the article is written like a personal reflection or essay, and I wondered why, since I didn't see anything in the article that looked like that. Ultimately I found out that it was because of things like this:
The word "we" was being construed literally by unthinking people who labeled article as essay-like for that reason alone and nothing else. You can't get much more inattentive than to do that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I think first-person should be vetoed in mathematics articles within regular prose. It starkly contrasts with the tone of the rest of the STEM articles around Wikipedia -- Wikipedia is not an academic journal or a conference, but an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias, even from other settings, do not use the first-person. By pronouncing "we," you also create an implied (but mostly superficial) personal tone to Wikipedia that I think is inappropriate for the setting. Stylistically, it just seems off -- not because first-person is used in a personal sense, but because it's connotation "smells" of personal sense. Atasato ( talk) 22:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd say not using "we" is in doubt preferred due to sounding more "encylopedic" and matching the language use in most math encylopedias or lexicons. However if some editor uses it, it certainly isn't NPOV violation or big oroblem, but rather marginal style issue that other editors are free to fix if they feel strongly about it.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 01:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Like Michael Hardy, I object to using silly {{ Essay-like}} cleanup templates if a mathematics article uses "we". I personally think it is generally preferable to rephrase the first person if possible. However, the first-person is a widespread stylistic convention in how reliable sources write about mathematics. So I think it is a valid stylistic choice. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 01:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Something else occurred to me, after reading Purgy's comment. Apart from issues with the first person plural that some readers find problematic, mathematics is largely written in an imperative mood, such as: "Assume that X is a compact space." This seems unavoidable (and it's not clear that it should be avoided, even if someone devises a way to eliminate all imperative verbs). But I've seen editors seriously insist that this imperative mood is inconsistent with encyclopedic writing, and call mathematics articles "essay-like" for this reason alone. It may be worth pointing out somewhere that mathematics largely must be written in this way, and that the use of first person plural is compatible with that mood. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Something is worse than the use of the first person, and is, nevertheless, widely used in Wikipedia. It is the use "must" with a mathematical object as a subject. For example, so "q must be one of the r's" instead of "so q is one of the r's". This example comes from Fundamental theorem of arithmetic#Proof, which contains several other examples. This use of "must" is so common in articles about elementary mathematics, that I had to look on only two articles for finding an example. D.Lazard ( talk) 18:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I recently encountered the article named by the above heading. Before long, I found my way to this Project and saw the FAQ, which quite well reflects several of my concerns about WP articles on technical subjects and mathematics. I am college-educated, but majored in English, not math or science. I placed tags on the Integrable article to call attention to the difficulty I believe all readers except those with math degrees will have understanding it. As I mentioned in my comment on the article Talk page, I can accept the highly technical nature of the text in the article body, but I firmly believe that the first sentence (or two) of the article can and should be written in plain English, so that even readers with nothing more than high school math (not including calculus) can understand what the article is about, even if they understand almost none of the details. I would like to invite any member of this Project to have a go at revising the article lead (lede)--even just the first sentence--in order to give the general reader a clear idea of the meaning of "integrable" as it is intended in the article. With such an improvement, I would be glad to remove the unpleasant 'incomprehensible' tag, which I added. Of course, anyone can remove it at any time, but I hope that will happen only after the first sentence is translated into a form of English that requires no specialized knowledge or prerequisites. DonFB ( talk)
Would someone mind giving Draft:Recurrence relations integration function a lookover. It is being deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Recurrence relations integration function. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Graph theory-savvy editors may wish to look at Kronecker graph, an article that has been expanded by a few SPAs (who may be operating together) with mostly copyright-infringing content. I've been chopping out the text that's directly copied from http://people.ee.duke.edu/~lcarin/Kronecker_Graphs.pdf for a few days now, but as a result the article has ended up looking very fragmented and written in shaky English. It's certainly an article that could use some improvement if anyone is interested. /wiae /tlk 15:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
A somewhat better version of our article " Space (mathematics)" is now refereed and published in WikiJournal of Sciences (and probably will be copied hereto). A precedent? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 17:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Also a printer friendly version (pdf file) is now available. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 06:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Now copied from WJS to Wikipedia. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I just created these four redirect pages:
It seems surprising that they didn't already exist. Is more such work in order? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Mathematics. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
First definition is as same as wikipedia article of monotone matrix. The other definition is here
This monotonic matrix is a integer rectangular matrix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E35D:2645:0:0:BA08:6E01 ( talk) 14:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
H-matrix is a matrix with its comparison matrix is M-matrix. It is useful in iterative method. We need an article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E35D:2645:0:0:BA08:6E01 ( talk) 14:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
There is now a project to migrate away from the texvc renderer for <math>
expressions.
This was the default a few years ago which produces PNG images, now we have a hybrid solution with uses MathJax in the backend to produce svg images and sometimes xml. There is still some legacy from texvc as it is used in the frist parsing step of the current engine. This means there are some idiosyncrasies in the syntax which differ from standard LaTex:
Current syntax | Suggested replacement | Comment |
---|---|---|
$ | \$ | redefinition would involve changing the character code |
% | \% | redefinition would involve changing the character code |
\and | \land | causes normal align environment to fail |
\or | \lor | see [14]; causes teubner to fail |
\part | \partial | acceptable if the document doesn't use sectioning with \part. |
\ang | \angle | this only conflicts with siunitx package. |
\C | \Complex | conflicts with puenc.def e.g. from hyperref package |
\H | \mathbb{H} | conflicts with text command \H{0} which is ő. |
\bold | \mathbf | |
\Bbb | \mathbb | |
\pagecolor | remove | not needed and not working anymore, done on en-wiki mainspace |
<ce>...</ce> |
<chem>...</chem> |
Chemistry environment, done on en-wiki mainspace |
The first step in the project will involve deprecating the old syntax and running a bot or semi-automated edits to change the syntax. These should not result in any visible change to the pages. The bot doing the work is User:Texvc2LaTeXBot which is currently seeking approval. Changes will also be made to the Visual Editor to produce the new syntax.
Subsequent stages in the project are discussed at
mw:Extension:Math/Roadmap, these involve some more complex problems with the <chem>
syntax. Eventually the texvc part will be removed completely and there may be some slight change to the rendered output. The main discussion of the project happens at
T195861 and your input is welcome.--
Salix alba (
talk): 15:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I invite other editors' opinions on this edit. (The user in question has been unilaterally making this change over dozens if not hundreds of articles on scientists, and is very abrasive about it. It seems deeply wrongheaded to me to put the postnomial in the lead sentence of the article, and moderately wrongheaded to put it into the infobox, but more discussion is needed than just two of us reverting each other.) -- JBL ( talk) 02:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The "signature" section already gives all the postnomial letters that are necessary. :-) XOR'easter ( talk) 14:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 25#Acoptic polygon. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Category:Bplus-Class mathematics articles, which is within the scope of this wikiproject, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's a proposed deletion up for discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Lemma. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent
Here's another deletion discussion.
It appears to me that the nominator has misunderstood with astonishing completeness what the article is about.
Click on the linked page and post your opinion. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Did anyone ever think about running a bot on Wikipedia to improve mathematical citations based on math databases? Specifically an MR bot/ Project Euclid bot of sorts?
For instance, searching PE by DOI reveals that
is an entry for it. This is a closed access link, but it does lists
doi:
10.3150/17-BEJ959,
MR
3788173,
Zbl
06869876 as identifiers. The bot could add
MR
3788173,
Zbl
06869876to citations with
doi:
10.3150/17-BEJ959 in them.
Likewise, instance
MR
0334798 lists
[15] which is listed as "Full-text: Open access" and there is also
Zbl
1125.83309 listed as an identifier. The bot could add |url=
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1103858973
and |zbl=1125.83309
to citations with
MR
0334798 in them.
There are other links than PE in the MR database, but the general idea would be the same. Query various math databases by various identifiers, give the other identifiers when found, and open access links when found.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to hear the community's opinion about these changes. For my own part, I think "famously" is quite applicable, and in academic writing, full names aren't necessary (and can even sound overly familiar). Thoughts? XOR'easter ( talk) 14:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP blocked. - DVdm ( talk) 21:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
FYI, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 4#Graphs by vertex and edge count, an old nomination which seems to have not been closed and just recently got attention again. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
This WikiProject's § Things to do section contains a table of suggested activities, with columns What and Where. Wanting to notify project members that a certain page – Monoidal t-norm logic – is too technical, I followed the first entry in the table, which links to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics/Lists. Imagine my surprise to read there – at the top of the page – that "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference" and a suggestion to "seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump". Yet the page contains a score of sections, each listing many items needing attention for various reasons. One of those sections and reasons is the Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics/Lists § Articles that are too technical. So I've dropped an entry in that list, and used the {{technical}} template in a section of the subject page, viz. Monoidal t-norm logic § Motivation, but thought that perhaps this talk page might be a more appropriate "forum".
Please tell me where WikiProject Mathematics contributors go to request action or chew the fat with each other, if not on the pages pointed to by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics page??? Wherever the preferred hangout is, that's where the WikiProject should point people – not to an "inactive" page. yoyo ( talk) 15:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to draw your attention to a Simon's problems draft article. The reviewing process appears to have been done by individuals with little or no science knowledge. I know the subject is notable and even German wikipedia has beaten us to it ( see article here). Any help pls? Thankx! Ema--or ( talk) 01:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Can some editors from the project look into and help resolve the discussion at the Lindelöf hypothesis article's talkpage? Thanks. Abecedare ( talk) 04:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone solve the edit war over there? RandNetter96 ( Talk) ( Contributions) 20:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Just stumbled across Krassimir Atanassov, a biography of a mathematician. The only thing resembling a source is an external link to his website. The multiple mentions of Smarandache caught my attention. Should it be an article? -- 2601:142:3:F83A:F5C6:4523:71E3:A4A7 ( talk) 16:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Per a question at the ref desk: is the implication correct? Both articles formerly claimed it was, but an editor has removed the claim from Fermat-Catalan conjecture. - 2601:142:3:F83A:9D73:4BE:2A07:E50A ( talk) 15:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
We seem to have this new article: Square root of 4.
I don't think we need to be informed of the first hundred digits after the decimal point in the principal real square root of 4. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Deacon Vorbis: : That content was in the edit history of the article that got deleted years ago. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It has become clear that there are a number of rather fervent mathematics-focused editors who have not actually bothered to read Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and who think that they get to determine whether or not to apply post-nominals in the lead of an article (and who are feverishly deleting these honours). These editors appear to be individuals who come from non-Commonwealth countries (e.g., the United States) who have no knowledge of how post-nominal letters are applied for various honours systems or royal societies. For the record, Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that post-nominals (e.g., OC FRSC) should be included in the lead of an article after the subject's name. See: MOS:POSTNOM Bueller 007 ( talk) 16:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
A next discussion about graphs categories takes place here. Your comments are welcome. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
MathXplore has been adding a bunch of links to references via the website arxiv-vanity.com, rather than direct links to the arXiv. I am having difficulty using the search to determine exactly how widely this site is linked from WP. Has this been discussed here before? Do people have thoughts about whether this is good/bad/not important? -- JBL ( talk) 18:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC){{
cite arxiv|arxiv=}}
/ {{
cite journal|arxiv=}}
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Someone suggested that Bott–Samelson resolution and Bott–Samelson variety be merged back in July 2015. However no one made a case and it was closed last October, but then reopened by the original person who said they didn't make a case for merger because it was clear the two articles discuss the same thing. I don't really understand the merge process, could someone take a look at these and merge them if they should be merged? JustOneMore ( talk) 05:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, there are two interlinked discussions about the graphical representation of vertex figures for polyhedra, and especially uniform polyhedra, at Talk:Vertex figure#Illustrations and Talk:Archimedean solid#Images. These diagrams are used in a large number of infoboxes and tables in polyhedron articles and so it is important to build consensus on their appearance. More contributors to the discussion/s would be helpful, as they are getting bogged down. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) [updated 05:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)]
They may be fine, but the editor is the author of fringe self-published books and busy promoting himself here. That's not an issue for the project, but I'm not sure how competent he is. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
In the one-way functions article, under the Candidates for one-way functions section there is a subsection for "Discrete exponential and logarithm" and "Elliptic curves". Now I don't know much at all about this area, but isn't it specifically the "elliptic curve discrete logarithm function" which is a candidate as a potential one-way function? If so should the elliptic curve subsection be merged with the discrete exponential and logarithm section? JustOneMore ( talk) 04:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
This deletion discussion for a mathematics journal may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, could anyone here help fix a few links to disambiguation pages?
Bolza surface has a link to Perturbation, Finsler manifold has a link to Minkowski norm and Simplicially enriched category has a link to Simplicial category.
I don't know whether there is a good target article for the links in question, or whether the link should be removed, as my level of Mathematics is not advanced enough to understand these topics. Thanks for your help. Iffy★ Chat -- 12:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi would someone be able to check the 'Newton–Cotes formulas page; Closed Newton-Cote formulae' section, specifically the (3rd and 4th) rows of formulae in the table...
1) The Simpson's 3/8 rule & Boole's rule do not appear to be consistent with the Trapezoid rule and Simpsons rule in that where they have used (b-a), I feel like they should have used (b-a)/n where n is the degree. This appears to be what they have done for trap/simpsons rule. The linked Boole's rule wiki page itself does have the initial coefficient as 2*h/45 and I believe h := (b-a)/4, meaning that using the style implemented on the Newton Coates page, the first coefficient should be 1/90 (i.e. (2/45)/4), and similarly the 3/8th simpsons rule should start with 1/8. As a reference I'm comparing to the Introduction to Numerical Analysis Springer book by Stoer and Bulirsch who provide a table for comparative purposes.
2) In the book I've just mentioned (page 126 for the table), the names of the interpolation schemes are different too. That reference names the degree 4 scheme as Milne's rule, whereas the wiki page seems to refer to places where it is called Boole's rule, and yet it uses Milne's rule for a different formula further down. I feel like (at least personally) I'm getting confused by all the names. Is there any way to clear it up?
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a0c:5bc0:40:107c:c479:58f9:bf8b:42cf ( talk)
Here is the article: Georg Cantor's first set theory article
Here is the "Good Article" review page: Talk:Georg_Cantor's_first_set_theory_article/GA2
I created the page originally, but most of what's there now is the work of Robert Gray, a historian of mathematics who has published refereed scholarly articles on this topic.
Work is needed to respond to the recommendations on the review page in order for this article to be promoted. There is Robert Gray is on vacation and not aware of the current situation. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I've put some comments here on the review page. Opinions? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Is it just me, or are a lot of articles getting promoted to "vital"? I don't normally pay attention to that sort of meta classification, but SSTbot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been promoting lots of articles that I wouldn't have thought should be considered "vital". For example, Bessel function is rated as "mid" importance by WikiProject Mathematics. Should it be only mid importance, but also vital? (Note: I have no strong opinions about any of this. I'm just noting that something doesn't quite jibe about it.) Sławomir Biały ( talk) 20:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Yeah, a bot for tagging these articles ran today. The current "quota" is 1200 articles (total) at level-5, including 300 at level-4 (biographies excluded from that count). My mental threshold is whether the topic would be discussed in a book-length mathematics encyclopedia. That's probably anything at "mid" priority or higher;
Bessel function is One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
and is probably important enough to be listed (no opinion on
Quantum cohomology).
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 01:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Wiki Education is hiring an experienced Wikipedian for a part-time (20 hours/week) position. The focus of this position is to help new editors (students and other academics) learn to edit Wikipedia. The main focus of the position is monitoring and tracking contributions by Wiki Education program participants, answering questions, and providing feedback. We're looking for a friendly, helpful editor who like to focus on article content, but also with a deep knowledge of policies and guidelines and the ability to explain them in simple, concise ways to new editors. They will be the third member of a team of expert Wikipedians, joining Ian (Wiki Ed) and Shalor (Wiki Ed). This is a part-time, U.S. based, remote or San Francisco based position.
We are especially interested in people with a background editing maths-related articles. See our Careers page for more information. Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 20:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
A nice proof is added recently to " Schröder–Bernstein theorem" by KeesDoe, see here and here, and challenged by "citation needed". It is very easy to check the proof... can it survive unsourced? can it be sourced? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 10:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
An IP editor is inserting masses of what looks to me to be original research at Duodecimal and reverting without comment whenever anyone (or at least me) tries to prune it back again. More eyes on the article would be helpful. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
There has been a lot of material added to the fringier sections of this article (k-torial, superfactorial, hyperfactorial) by an IP editor over the last month or so. I've been meaning to look it over to see to what extent it is decent, but keep failing to make the time. So I am dropping this here as a reminder to myself/an invitation to anyone else who wants to take a look. -- JBL ( talk) 12:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Is the article titled Holor worth keeping? Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I just stumbled across Supergolden ratio, which attributes to the source
The Changing Shape of Geometry: Celebrating a Century of Geometry and Geometry Teaching, "4.13". Mathematical Association of America (2003). Cambridge University Press. pp. 320–326. ISBN 9780521531627.
the following paragraph, as well as a corresponding sentence in the lead:
The supergolden rectangle is common in everyday life. The ratios of the sides of rectangular household objects like Sunday newspapers and Cornflakes packets are within half of a percent of 1.46557…, the supergolden ratio. This is because the supergolden rectangle is a good balance of aesthetic (The supergolden algebraic relationship x3=x2+1 is similar to the golden algebraic relationship x2=x+1, but the supergolden geometric relationship is somewhat more complicated than the golden geometric relationship.) and practical (The supergolden rectangle's proportions are more suited for various roles than those of the golden rectangle, which is too narrow for many uses.), allowing it to become widely used in society. However, while the supergolden rectangle is the most common, other proportions are also commonly used, including √2 (paper), ρ (Weetabix box), and φ (softback book).
(A good comparison is the article golden ratio.) I do not presently have access to the complete relevant section of the source (Google books cuts off, and I am traveling) but I thought others might want to take a look. -- JBL ( talk) 12:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
FYI, I'm proposing a stronger style convention for special characters which are often seen in math-related articles. The idea is to use Unicode characters like ÷ instead of HTML entities like ÷, except in cases where characters can be confusing or there's an existing guideline to do something else (like with fractions and superscripts). If you'd like to read and/or comment, the latest version is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Fourth draft. Thanks! -- Beland ( talk) 06:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh hi everyone, I hadn't noticed more discussion was happening here.
... that a volunteer would quietly change..., and the Danaans' present
"No one should go around punishing people for not using the preferred system up front."looks like shafts of satire. May I point you to my writing above:
"I am an expert in the guidelines, which you constantly disrupt." and "I don't care a sh*t about you toiling to restore meaning, which is against (my) guidelines."??? Being welcome in this specific mode is bluntly deterrent. I oppose to establishing this revised WP:MOS with all my negligible might. BTW, I looked at the discussion with D. Eppstein et al., too. Purgy ( talk) 14:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Your comments on
Draft:Residual intersection are welcomed. Please use either
Yet Another Articles for Creation Helper Script by enabling
Preferences →
Gadgets → Editing → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{
afc comment|Your comment here. ~~~~}}
directly in the draft. Thank you.
Sam
Sailor 08:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
As far as I understand, an anon is inserting a nonsensical "Vector Nuclear of Photon Released" to many articles. He is pushing his "theory" presented here, here and here (signed by Bilal Mohamed). His IP numbers: 196.224.17.232, 197.28.160.228, 197.28.165.239. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 13:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I see that Category:Prime numbers doesn't have any articles about specific prime numbers within it, aside from the subcategories for 2, 3, and 7, and a few very large prime numbers, e.g. Belphegor's prime. Meanwhile, there are plenty of specific prime numbers in Category:Integers. Is this by design? Seems to me that "Prime numbers" could be a subcategory of "Integers", with all the prime numbers moved down from Integers to Prime numbers, but maybe that's not normal in the mathematics part of Wikipedia. Nyttend ( talk) 01:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Is this a notable journal (in the sense it can belong to mainspace)? -- Taku ( talk) 23:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Domdeparis has recently been going around removing mentions of Erdos-Bacon numbers in various articles, citing this RFC about Natalie Portman. At least one of these removals ( Daniel Kleitman) is clearly inappropriate, another ( Danica McKellar, where it was supported by a USA Today article) seems dubious, and I have not checked the rest. (By contrast, removing it from Portman's article is obviously reasonable.) Since this is taking place over several articles, I thought broader discussion would be good. -- JBL ( talk) 15:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
which measures the "collaborative distance" in authoring academic papers between that person and Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős—and one's Bacon number—which represents the number of links, through roles in films, by which the individual is separated from American actor Kevin Bacon.whereas in reality the Erdős number
describes the "collaborative distance" between mathematician Paul Erdős and another person, as measured by authorship of mathematical papers.. If you take some time to search the people who are supposed to have this number most of them did not author mathematical papers at all and some were simply named as collaborators. This kind of thing IMHO should not be in an encyclopedia. If one want to point out that an actor has also an academic background then this can be done in prose without resorting to a meme and the same for an academic with experience in the movie business. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Will someone please review this draft with regard to whether it should be accepted as an article? In particular, does it appear to be academically sound? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
The creator, Schiszm seems to be a competent academic writer and my gut says this surely should be a notable subject, but the draft needs to be substantially reworked to fit in WP, particularly in terms of the style and tone. Please advise and assist the original contributor. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Please... Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 16:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
While there are many versions of paraconsistent logic (which might itself be an obstacle to developing paraconsistent mathematics), I feel that most of them derive from an attempt to avoid making a choice when confronted with a contradiction. If one fails to accept disjunctive syllogism, then one will fail to commit oneself to a particular development of the 'correct' alternative. The article on paraconsistent logic recognizes that most of them are weaker than classical logic. The result of this is that one's development of mathematics will be crippled. JRSpriggs ( talk) 01:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#It's_time_to_euthanize_Wikipedia. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
OP blocked two days for personal attacks. - Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
If Michael Hardy does retire, that's relevant to this WikiProject, as he has edited a lot of Mathematics articles. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
To keep an unfolding drama focused in the places most appropriate for it, rather than letting it sprawl across the backrooms of Wikipedia?yeah pretty much Galobtter ( pingó mió) 15:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The "personal attacks" to which "Roxy" refers consist of my declining to recant an accusation. When I'm the target, it's an "accusation"; when "Roxy" is the target, it's a "personal attack" regardless of whether it's a factual statement. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Boris Tsirelson. While it is certainly not appropriate to "spread drama" over various project pages, shadowing users to censor their drama on those various project pages doesn't strike me as particularly appropiate either. The regular users/project members of those projects pages can decide for themselves whether they want to close/cut short/archive a discussion or not.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 21:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Whatever the issues are concerning Michael Hardy and his behavior elsewhere (see above section "Wikipedia requiescat in pace") I want to point out that Michael, in his 16 years here, and with over 200,000 edits, has made an enormous contribution to Wikipedia's mathematics content and in addition has been an extremely valuable member of this project. In my 14 years as a member of this project, I can personally attest to the significant positive impact Michael has made here. It would be a shame if that were to come to an end. Paul August ☎ 23:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Redirects -4 (number) and -999 (number), which presently target 4 (number) and 999 (number) respectively, have been nominated for deletion at RfD. You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 3#-4 (number). Thryduulf ( talk) 10:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that WENO methods are notable and important. We should change one of them ( WENO and Weno) to a disambig page.-- Sharouser ( talk) 15:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
04:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Could somebody take a look at Draft:Plane normal form and leave review comments on the draft. It requires a SME to review properly. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Finally, at last, all remnants of disagreement by an highly meritorious math editor vanished to oblivion for any casual passers by. What a satisfaction for a certain gang.
I myself bemoan mostly that also the despicable efforts to completely eradicate, and when this did not work, to brutally silence any utterance of empathy.
I hope this is ignored, but I expect it to be deleted, because talking about silencing math editors is off-topic for the WikiProject Mathematics. In any case I can do no other. Purgy ( talk) 08:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
IS related to the question of editing math articles on wikipedia.Purgy ( talk) 13:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
If you want to whine about some user's conduct, go do it on their talk page or on some drama board -- that is not what this page is for. Everyone who watches this page is aware of the issue. I will not comment here further.
Mathematical practice, an old (2004) but still-unsourced and short article, has been proposed for deletion. Anyone want to try rescuing it? — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
02:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
So, many of the older mathematical articles are not well referenced (indeed may be unreferenced), because (a) they are old, and WP:V was not the first content policy, and (b) there was a view, which I would articulate in this way, "full inline referencing does not help to see the wood from the trees in understanding advanced mathematics". I deprecate the by-passing of WP:BEFORE in nominations for deletion. In the case of older articles, I would like to underline the point that if they predate Google Books, the facile step of searching Google Books should be carried out. Come on guys, the Web is not static, and new potential sources are posted online all the time. Nominating some article started in 2004 for deletion should not be done without the due diligence specified in the guideline. I'm quite happy to beat anyone over the head with it if they think it is kind of OK to use AfD as a cleanup area.
Which brings us to whether mathematical practice is an encyclopedic topic. Well, it is. It is quite hard to explain what "mixed mathematics" as mentioned in Mathematical Tripos actually was without the concept. And so to explain why my alma mater has DPMMS and DAMTP, and why both Hawking and fluid dynamicists had offices in the latter. That is, it may not be the kind of concept an "internal" view of mathematics in the 21st century relies on, but it has a great deal of traction in placing mathematics socially and historically. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Update on September 22: To resolve the confusion described in the following paragraphs, I have now installed my rewrite of Section 2 of the page for Beltrami equation, my new version being a cookbook of Gauss's technique. For more details, see Talk:Beltrami equation. Unless someone else finds themself confused, the issue can now probably be considered resolved.
LyleRamshaw ( talk) 17:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The page for Beltrami equation underwent a significant rewrite in mid-2012. User:Mathsci added Section 2, which discusses Gauss's technique for constructing isothermal coordinates on a Riemannian 2-manifold whose metric is real-analytic. I am quite interested in that technique, but I can't follow the argument presented in Section 2. I described my confusion in a posting on Talk:Beltrami equation back in June, with no response so far. I recently posted a query to User talk:Mathsci as well. They haven't responded; but that isn't surprising, since they were recently hospitalized.
An Australian grad student named Yi Huang referred to Section 2 in a 2013 posting of his to MathOverflow: [25]. Huang's posting suggests that some of the equations in Section 2 may have their variables somehow scrambled. Huang also apparently interprets Section 2 as approximating the isothermal coordinates by computing successive terms of their power series. That's a reasonable approach, but I didn't have that approach in mind when I tried to read Section 2.
User:Mathsci references Volume IV of Spivak (pages 314-317 in the third edition, pages 455-460 in the second edition) as their source. I have read the argument in Spivak, and I now understand that argument well enough that I have successfully used Mathematica to numerically approximate isothermal coordinates in a simple but nontrivial test case. I have posted a possible new version of Section 2 to Talk:Beltrami equation, explaining Gauss's technique as I now understand it. Unfortunately, I still don't understand what is going on in the current version of Section 2.
Does some Wikipedia math editor know enough differential geometry to help me out with the current Section 2, or to comment on my proposed new version?
LyleRamshaw ( talk) 17:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Does the list of polygons have any value or is it just Listcruft that ought to go for AfD? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 18:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I have collected several articles which contain links to DAB pages on math maths mathematics-related topics where expert attention is needed. If you solve one of these puzzles, remove the {{
disambiguation needed}} tag from the article, and post {{
done}} below.
already Done
|
---|
(last 2 dealt with by Michael Hardy) jraimbau ( talk) 11:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC) |
Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 03:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if anyone would be willing to look at this draft: Draft:Schwarzschild's equation for radiative transfer. One of the people involved in our Fellows program accidentally submitted it to AfC and I was wondering if anyone would be willing to look at it and if it's ready, accept it through AfC. I can't do it myself since it's a conflict of interest and I would also prefer that someone more familiar with mathematics look over it to make sure that there isn't anything major to be resolved. Thanks! Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 13:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
An apparently new editor has created an enormous number of redirects and relatively worthless articles. Examples include:
I may have missed a few categories of questionable (in my opinion) articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Xayahrainie43: has also created 271 (number) (which is fine) and a truly enormous number of ASCII-related redirects (which I'm less convinced are OK; ASCII 61 is just useless, while I am likely to request deletion of all those redirects similar to '!' or \54 as actively harmful). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Has there been any consensus for this change which reduced the accepted range for integers which should have individual pages to 170? It looks like an undiscussed arbitrary change to me. At least, not rationale was offered in the edit summary. Spinning Spark 12:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic, flame bait
|
---|
The worm obviously ended with the fish, the fishermen, ... I don't care. Repent!
Purgy (
talk) 13:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
|
Just wondering (cf. [26]): in the first sentence of a math article, to establish context, is "commutative algebra" considered understandable to the non-math readers? I myself tend to avoid the term, which seems a bit jargon-y and favor ones like "algebra" or "abstract algebra". Similarly, I avoid "functional analysis", which may not be understandable to readers who, gasp, don't know Hilbert spaces. I don't know a good alternative for "algebraic geometry", so I tend to use that one in the first sentence. -- Taku ( talk) 23:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I am the author of the edit that motivates this thread [27]. In this specific case, the beginning was "In abstract algebra and algebraic geometry, the spectrum of a commutative ring R, ...". In my opinion, the words "algebra" and "geometry" suffices for everybody to know that it is about mathematics. For people who know mathematics a little, I think that commutative algebra is much more informative, as there are many textbooks that having this phrase in their title and introducing the concept of the spectrum of a ring. On the other hand, no textbook of "abstract algebra", if any, introduces the concept. My edit being reverted, I have replaced "abstract algebra" by "algebra".
Discussing this particular edit should be in the talk page of this article. However, behind this case, there is a general question that deserves to be discussed here. Many article begin with In
abstract algebra
. This supposes implicitly that everybody understand the difference between "algebra" and "abstract algebra". My personal opinion is that "abstract algebra" is an old-fashioned term that is no more used in mathematics, except in teaching or (and this is essentially the same thing) for the study of algebraic structures for themselves, independently of their use in other branches of mathematics. For this reason, my opinion is that, in almost all cases, "In
abstract algebra" should be replaced by "In
algebra".
D.Lazard (
talk) 10:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
(Thank you all for the responses.) Like before, the issue seems to be the tension between serving readers with some math background and those without it. "commutative algebra" is certainly more precise and thus informative than say "algebra". And, as Lazard said (and I'm in agreement), "abstract algebra" is not the common term used by specialists (for example, I don't really use it). But this seems to be similar to the case of a mathematical analysis; it is not the term commonly used by specialists; since other terms like functional analysis or harmonic analysis are more specific (thus informative) and "mathematical" is redundant among math people. Maybe "abstract" serves the similar role? My view is that the first sentence is mainly for establishing the context, especially for math articles (even that means not telling what it is when that depends the readers having an appropriate background). And so, again, "in commutative algebra" sounds problematic for this purpose. (Incidentally, Japanese people, both in teaching and research, almost never use "abstract algebra" and so the matter is heavily language/region/culture-dependent.) -- Taku ( talk) 21:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello to all, I have just created a new bio for the above person who is an Emeritus professor of Operational Research at the LSE. She co-defined the branch and bound algorithm in 1960 which from what I can gather was a big deal as it helped process the Travelling salesman problem. I'm trying to find some more biographical information basic or otherwise but I am coming up short. If anyone has any sources or wishes to contribute I'd be very grateful. cheers. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)As a separate issue, n-ary probably should be a disambiguation page, including at least
But I would need help setting it up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
If I understand correctly I think that the pages Schur_functor#Examples and Young_tableau#Applications_in_representation_theory clash in the way they talk about Young diagrams classifying irreducible representations.
The Young tableau page explains it nicely if I understand correctly, GL(n) has irreducible representations indexed by weights and if all the weights are positive then we get a young diagram, conversely if we have a young diagram with at most n rows then we get a weight. If you then look at the Schur functor page it says that given a young diagram with each row having length at most n, then the Schur module corresponding to that diagram is the representation with highest weight λ.
I'm pretty sure that in fact the highest weight should be λt. (I.e. if you have have a weight λ then create the young diagram associated to λ and then take its transpose, then the schur module associated to this diagram is then the wanted representation)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to mention this possible issue/mistake, let me know if it is not.
-- 144.82.8.225 ( talk) 17:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone make sense of these two edits? (They adjust how numbers are displayed in articles about languages that use base-12 number systems.)
More broadly, Xayahrainie43 has been drawing a lot of attention here recently, and for those who are interested in the drama boards, I started a thread at ANI about them. -- JBL ( talk) 14:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
On the browser on which I'm viewing this page, the display above renders \oint in an absurd way. It makes the integral sign with the circle a lot fatter than all other integral signs, and the subscript C is far too far to its right. I put the same code into an actual LaTeX document and got perfectly reasonable results, not like those I see here. Do others see the same thing? Can this problem somehow get corrected? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Deacon Vorbis: What do you mean by "when it was changed"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
\oint
didn't work at all), and I've been unable to find it again. I was hoping the texvc experts would know more. Thanks for reporting,
Salix alba; would it be worth mentioning the placement of the integral limits as well? –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 14:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Periodic table of topological invariants ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Even after checking all three references, I'm unsure if this is supposed to be a concept in mathematics or in physics. I'm also unsure that it meets notability guidelines or that everything in this article is in the references (and is not WP:OR). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I came across this draft while reviewing the WP:AFC queue; I'm not sure if theorems are considered notable for Wikipedia, or whether this falls under WP:NOTMANUAL. If a project member could advise, that would be great. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me in case of any reply). -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Will someone please review and assess this draft? My first thought was that it was too technical for someone (myself) who has forgotten a lot of higher mathematics in fifty years. (I have forgotten all of the math that I learned in college. I still remember the intermediate algebra, trigonometry, and first-year calculus that I learned in high school.) On further reading, it appears to be largely original research by Dixon seeking to publish his own research in Wikipedia. So one of my questions is whether this work has already been published in mathematical journals.
Should it be declined as consisting of original research, or should it be declined as needing to be revised to be less difficult to understand, or should it be declined as not being sufficiently notable among mathematicians, or should it be accepted? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
After brief research, I am still not sure that an article on Dixon algebra passes notability. It definitely won't be understandable by anyone but mathematicians and mathematical physicists. That doesn't in itself mean that there shouldn't be an article. The references are nearly all either by Geoffrey Dixon of the University of New Hampshire, or by Cohl Furey, whose research is largely about octonions. What I think that we need is an article on Geoffrey Dixon, who has made interesting contributions in math and outside math and appears to satisfy academic notability. Dixon appears to be trying to use Wikipedia to publicize his research rather than to publicize himself, which may have to do with being a mathematician. I think that I will decline the draft, but if I am asked to review Draft:Geoffrey Dixon, I think that I will accept it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the draft in the tittle to Modos. I don't have an expertise to properly review it (i.e., can't make sense of it) and thus it can benefit from the attentions from the other editors. Regards. -- Taku ( talk) 23:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I came across this in the WP:AFC queue. I'm not sure if this subject qualifies for inclusion. If a member of the project could let me know, that would be great. (Please ping me as I'm not watching this page). -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno ( talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Discussions regarding some unusual editing occurred at X, E, duodecimal (and in several other places on that page). Does any information at User:Xayahrainie43/duodecimal have an encyclopedic purpose? Please offer opinions at the deletion discussion. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
A wishlist item may interest people here: meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Reading#Functional and beautiful math for everyone. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
A question both deep and profound,
Is whether a circle is round:
In a paper by Erdős,
Published in Kurdish,
A counter-example is found.
Author unknown (not me, although I could hazard a guess). I'll be back later with more mathematics-related links to DAB pages which require expert attention, I'm collecting another new bunch. Narky Blert ( talk) 22:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
It wouldn't have occurred to me that anyone would think "Erdős" rhymes with "Kurdish" if I hadn't seen this. I pronounce the "Er" in "Erdős" like "air", rhyming with "chair" and the "ur" in "Kurdish" like the "r" in "ring", and the vowel in the second syllable of "Erdős" like the German "ö", and I make the second syllable of "Erdős" rhyme with "fish". I have no idea what degree of correctness there may be in my pronunciation of the second syllable of "Erdős". Maybe approximate rhymes work better when you hear them that when you read them (maybe except the ones that are standard and expected). Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Deine Zauber binden wieder
Was die Mode streng geteilt;
Alle Menschen werden Brüder
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.
Ach n"eige", Du schmerzensr"eiche", Dein Antlitz gnäd"ig" meiner Not ...Gretchen's prayer, noticing to be pregnant; in Faust, J.W.v.Goethe. The quoted parts are taken to rhyme, because the sounds belonging in German to "ei" and "i" are quite neighbored, as are the pronunciations of "g" and "ch" in several regional dialects. I could not call into my awareness any word from the English language that ends in a sound, reminding me directly of how "Erdős" does. Thank you! Purgy ( talk) 15:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Anyone want to participate in a silly discussion about symmetry? At Fountain (Duchamp), a long-term editor of that article is edit-warring to include sourced material claiming that the piece was rotated 90 degrees around "its axis of symmetry" from its normal position, despite the clear evidence of a photo showing that it has no axis of symmetry and that the change from its normal position is a 180 degree rotation. See also Talk:Fountain (Duchamp)#HOW many degrees?. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I've been going through some set theory books lately. I have the habit of going through Wikipedia articles about specific topics in things I'm reading in order to chase some references or get just a bit more of information. So I saw the class article is deficient in some aspects (feels more like my own class notes than an encyclopedic, referenced entry). Since I don't want to come and mess up and then have someone revert my good faith first edits, I want to ask some clarification:
Broadly, these are my concerns about editing. These concerns reflect the ways in which I believe I can improve this article. The reason I'm asking here instead of the talk page for the article is that I feel more people watch this than that other one. Thanks a lot to whoever reads and responds. -- Paper wobbling sound ( talk) 01:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
at Talk:Fountain (Duchamp)#HOW many degrees?. Editors here may like to lurk, as I've been doing, or jump into the fray, on what has turned into one of the most interesting WP:MINUTIA discussions I've seen (the wrong word, as my reference isn't to Chionanthus but to very tiny points being discussed at length - I just don't know how to spell it). My obvious reason for alerting those here is not to facilitate any kind of resolution (which seems to have been partly met with a new edit on the page which doesn't answer, but wordsmithily sidetracks, the question: "How many degrees?") but is solely because I am enjoying the spectacle of it and want the discussion to continue. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Reading/Functional and beautiful math for everyone and m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Editing/Make the math tag support non-Latin languages appear to be the only math-related proposals on the Community Wishlist. Voting (straight up approval voting; editors can support as many or as few wishes as they want) ends in about four days. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
A new student editor created Division by infinity, which could I think be a good counterpart to our existing page Division by zero, but it just wasn't ready yet ( WP:OR-ful, WP:ESSAY-ish, etc.). I have therefore moved it into Draft space. This seemed a less hostile approach than dumping them into AfD, which seemed a likely eventuality otherwise. (I wouldn't have moved it unilaterally if anyone else had edited it other than its creator.) XOR'easter ( talk) 16:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I am revising the files uploaded for Wiki Science Competition 2017 and I have noticed this one. Such picture of the interior of a small domen will never be a finalist of course, but I am trying to improve its categorization and description like I did with other ones. It has a shape of a some regular solid, it could be the sort of image it is used in a school text book to show how geometry appears in real life, for example.
So, if you had to put a specific category related to a polyhedric shape, which one would it be in your opinion? thank you in advance.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 12:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
A Request-for-Comment has been opened at Talk:209 (number) which may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments and concerns are welcome. Please join in the discussion here. Derek M ( talk) 23:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I just ran across this article. Is that a thing? I can't seem to find much in google or google scholar that isn't authored by the user, who apparently admits COI, or isn't simply copied wiki content or print-on-demand of wiki content. There was also a discussion in the nLab forum inquiring about the notability of the topic. Is this too OR for our taste? It doesn't seem like more than one or two people have written about it. Rschwieb ( talk) 14:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Could someone cast a glance over Draft:Spread(Intuitionism) and see at what level of readiness for mainspace it is. Many thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Strangely, I did not find any result of the form "derivative of the limit is equal to the limit of derivatives whenever...". Neither in real analysis nor in complex analysis. Are they really not there on Wikipedia, or did I look for them in the wrong places? (I do not mean termwise differentiation of a power series, this is too special.) Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 18:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The new article titled Topological geometry, if indeed it ought to exist, could certainly use some work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The IP 73.46.49.164 insists to link Interconnectedness, an article, certainly not covered by mathematical ideas, within the article Chaos theory, which has an explicit hat note, guiding to alternatives to mathematical treatment via a disambiguation page, and is of interest for WikiProject Mathematics. For to me not obvious reasons the article is also tagged with being of interest for WikiProject Religion, but I am unsure, if this should be discussed at all, and if yes, where.
I did discuss this linking already at the TP, but the IP started to insert this link again, without discussing, just claiming it were correct. Within this second effort I already reverted twice and asked for discussion again, but now I want to bring the situation there to the awareness of the project. Purgy ( talk) 08:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Will someone please review Draft:Multivariate quadratic random number generator and advise whether it should be accepted as an article? Please remember that the acceptance criterion is not whether the draft is a Good Article, but only whether it is mathematically sound, and whether it is worth keeping as an article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
In several articles, including Exact sequence, Cokernel, Snake lemma, and others, user Cedar101 has replaced, for exact sequences, the standard markup <math> by <ce> (or some variants of it), which is a markup with a uncommon syntax that he has implemented. The resulting rendering is correct, but the resulting source code in no more latex but a language that is unreadable for most of us. I have reverted him once, but, for avoiding edit warring, a consensus is needed about the use of this markup in mathematics. My opinion is that the use of <ce> is WP:disruptive editing, as it makes very time consuming to modify the involved exact sequences. But this is only my opinion, and a consensus is needed in favor or against the following assertion
The use in mathematics of <ce>, or of any of its variants is disruptive editing.
D.Lazard ( talk) 10:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
<ce>
for things which are not chemical equations is semantically incorrect, and should be replaced by the proper <math>
syntax.
Helder 11:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)I invite any interested editors to join this discussion about the page Linear differential equation. Loraof ( talk) 17:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
David Eppstein has recently nominated Prime number for a Good Article. I will begin reviewing the article in the next few days, but more reviewers are more than welcome! Leave your review at Talk:Prime_number/GA1. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 14:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I have for a long time thought that wikipedia's article on stokes' theorem was inadequate. The first equation of the article is completely incomprehensible to me in terms of applying it to an example. If you know anything about multivariable calculus or vector calculus please help! Brian Everlasting ( talk) 20:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Please help to review Draft:Binary Tiling a very brief draft at AFC. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 16:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to
Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons.
New:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Ipigott ( talk) 14:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
A hundred or more pages on maths-related topics link to, and have been tagged as linking to, DAB pages. Such links are of no use to anyone, especially our readers. They also get picked up by User:DPL bot for violating WP:INTDAB. I gave up maths when they started writing circles on the integral signs - which means that I know enough not to know the answer, and also enough not to guess. Can any expert help with the {{ disambiguation needed}} tags on these pages, please, for starters?
If you do help solve one of those issues: take off the {{ dn}} tag in the article, and add a {{ done}} tick on this page. As I said, there are a hundred-plus others – I have seen them before, I will see them again on my routine trawls though Disambiguation pages with links, and I can post them in this WikiProject. You will likely get no thanks unless another WP:DPL member notices – but, in the end, all that matters is getting this encyclopaedia right. Narky Blert ( talk) 03:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The next batch of problems which I hope that experts in this WikiProject may be able to solve. As before, search for "disam" in the text as displayed; and if you make a fix, remove the {{ dn}} tag and add {{ done}} here:
Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 22:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Besides
I know nothing about Arakelov, there are too many names of almost equal classes of connections around for my knowledge, and the linguistics might be simply off track. Just FYI. Purgy ( talk) 08:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
My next batch of articles which contain {{ disambiguation needed}} tags needing expert attention:
As usual: thanks in advance, and mark any problem which I have listed here and which you have solved as {{ done}}. Narky Blert ( talk) 02:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, there's a discussion at User talk:Loraof#Empirical distribution function about the graph used in Empirical distribution function. nagual design 14:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I have added the {{ math rating}} banner to the new article Fiber product of schemes, and I have a problem with the parameter "field": is this "algebra" or "geometry"? As this problem occurs for many articles, it would be better to add the possibility of "field = algebraic geometry". Could someone do that? D.Lazard ( talk) 10:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
(unindent) What about the articles which (clearly) belong to algebraic geometry, will they stay in geometry or algebra or will someone move them systematically to this new category? Maybe someone could also consult Geometry guy who once invested a lot of work into the grading scheme and categorization of the articles; he might have some suggestions based on his experience with this work. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 22:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Integer sequence#Definable sequences. -- Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 09:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Could someone with graphing skills please convert this table into a graph? The graph can be seen here (put there by another editor). Thanks. Loraof ( talk) 20:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
There is a deletion discussion that can use the inputs from a third party, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bivariant theory -- Taku ( talk) 03:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
What about the "slow motion edit warring" at Real number#In physics? "This approach removes the real number system from its foundational role in physics", really? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: There's some weird parsing error that showed up when I added <math> tags in a discussion below. Please go to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) and search for "Rfc: Change default <math> to be inline". -- Trovatore ( talk) 02:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on the proposal. Thank you for your attention.--
Debenben (
talk) 23:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I know zero about math academic stuff, so would like to draw the attention of this WP to a draft under review: Draft:Walks on ordinals.
There are allegations that the submitter is attempting to popularize a fringe mathematical theory, which the submitter denies. Could someone more expert take a look at the draft? You can post and sign comments at the top of the draft page itself rather than its Talk, for ease of reading. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 22:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
It is definitely not a "fringe theory", but JR is correct that it's hard to understand from the draft exactly what is being discussed. I think there's a typo in this bit:
which should read
If you understand "ladder systems" (which I really ought to, having spent a year in Toronto, but unfortunately I never really sat down and did the work to figure them out), then I think you might be able to make sense of the text, after fixing the typo. I am not sure what the curvy arrows are about, but again, they might make sense to people who know ladder systems. -- Trovatore ( talk) 02:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
For reference: ladder systems are defined (among other places) in Section 3 of
this paper. --
Trovatore (
talk) 02:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Here is another deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Distributional calculus. -- Taku ( talk) 20:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Category:Pseudoconvex minimization and 2 related categories, all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm opening this new section so as not to get in the way of archiving #Links to DAB pages. As before, (1) search for "disam" in the article, (2) mark any problems you have solved as {{ done}}, and (3) thanks in advance.
I hope that within a month I will have found and posted here every maths article which links to a DAB page – and, more importantly, that you experts will have solved those problems for the benefit of our readers. I find 'em, you fix 'em – this is going well. Yrs, Narky Blert ( talk) 22:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Here are some new MfD discussions that might interest the members of the project.
— Taku ( talk) 09:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
One more
— Taku ( talk) 07:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Unproductive discussion
|
---|
|
One more:
– Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 18:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how many people here use the mobile app, but it turns out that it puts helpful little snippets of text along with article titles. These are currently hosted on Wikidata. This is problematic, in part because changes to Wikidata don't show up on Wikipedians' watchlists.
For this and other reasons, the WMF has decided to add "short descriptions" to Wikipedia articles, which will be embedded in the source of the article itself. As I understand it, the plan is that every single article will be expected to have a short description. The description is allowed to be blank, though I'm not sure why you'd want it to be.
See Wikipedia:Short description and Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions for more detailed information.
The descriptions are really intended to be short. Making a long speech about a subject is not very useful in this context. The suggested limit is 40 characters, though it's a "soft limit" — if we can't get anything useful in 40 characters, we're allowed to go over.
Some thoughts:
OK, I've yammered on long enough here. -- Trovatore ( talk) 22:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Additional thought for possibly including
I've just added a ninth section to Talk:Cyclic number, I wouldn't normally post such a thing so quickly at a Wikiproject, but that talkpage has an unusual number of open and ancient queries which hopefully will be of interest here. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I have recently created (it existed as a dab page) Computational complexity. I need the help of the community on two points.
D.Lazard ( talk) 09:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Excellent list created by Taku here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages Thank-you. Legacypac ( talk) 18:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Here are some MfD discussions that might interest the members of the project.
— Taku ( talk) 11:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Somehow related, I do have a proposal: can this project maintain the list of all math-related pages in the draftspace? One of the problems is that the draftspace is somehow invisible to the members of this project (and one of the reasons for the above MfDs is, ostensibly, to bring some attention to those drafts). Having such a list helps address this concern. — Taku ( talk) 19:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't see how a list would hurt. I've put work into several of these drafts when my attention was called to them, and I've seen at least one other editor do the same. Several drafts have been promoted to main space as a result. And if we had the full list, we could get a better sense of how many are three-word fragments that might as well be deleted, how many only need a little work to become decent main-space stubs, how many could be merged into existing articles, etc. At worst, a list would be one more thing for people who don't care to ignore. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a move request at Talk:Surface (mathematics) and a WP:MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Surface. Both may interest members of this project. D.Lazard ( talk) 20:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The article Hidden Markov model has been nominated for GA, and is now the second oldest unreviewed article there; it was nominated in June 2017, over eight months ago. I have been doing GA reviewing recently, including some maths articles, but would like to get someone with deeper mathematical knowledge to review this -- my maths degree is now nearly thirty years old, and this is not a topic I know anything about. Would someone here be willing to help out by reviewing the article? If someone is interested but not knowledgeable about GA reviewing I'd be glad to help out with that side of things. Thanks for any help. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
(I didn't start this draft). Is this notable? -- Taku ( talk) 23:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
This is a wrong redirect. The draft was/is about a level structure in algebraic geometry. Can someone correct it? (I can't do it myself without risking getting an indefinite ban from Wikipedia.) -- Taku ( talk)
In fact, it seems I will be indef-ban after all. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite_community_ban_for_TakuyaMurata. (I know I'm not completely blameless but still.) -- Taku ( talk) 01:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
This discussion is difficult to understand. Apparently, Draft:Level structure is a draft created in June 2015 by Taku. It has be wrongly redirected by Hasteur in August 2017. It is only yesterday that Taku reverted this wrong redirect. This started an edit war between Taku and Hasteur, until Taku moved the draft to the main space with the name Level structure (algebraic geometry). The edit war continued about maintenance tags, this time, because Hasteur insisted to put tags about issues that are common with almost all stubs (otherwise, these would not be stubs) and thus duplicate the stub tag. After having clarified the history, I see two remaining issues:
This article was at one time a draft, which was copied into mainspace several years ago but has never been assessed. It seems to me that it needs more independent references, and may have been a neologism at the time it was created. Can someone with a math background and access to academic journals fix it up and/or tag it appropriately? Thanks.— Anne Delong ( talk) 10:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
On a related note, what about the article Christina Sormani? It has been prodded twice but survives. Is the topic notable? Mgnbar ( talk) 00:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I've seen the phrase "scheme theory" used on wikipedia several times (e.g. in the current version of the article Main theorem of the elimination theory), and while the meaning of this term is clear, I don't think it's a conventional phrase. As more or less an algebraic geometer, I find it very quaint and nonstandard. Only the adjective "scheme-theoretic" seems to be commonly used. To support the feeling let me remark that, unlike group theory, representation theory, number theory and others, books introducing schemes are (almost?) never titled "scheme theory". Here are some popular books covering schemes ( [4]):
To follow the usage in the literature, I would replace "scheme theory" by "modern algebraic geometry", but I think D.Lazard objects to this choice, so maybe "the language of schemes" is an OK replacement. Dpirozhkov ( talk) 16:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
(I'm late to the party but here is my take).
-- Taku ( talk) 00:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Could someone that understands this let us know if this AfC draft is any good? Legacypac ( talk) 07:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Category:Unary operations has been nominated for possible deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a lot of math in Draft:Data-driven control systems. Is this page ok for mainspace? Legacypac ( talk) 00:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard which could benefit from input from editors with mathematics knowledge. Please see the discussion for details. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 12:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The new article titled Stephens' constant is something of mess. It doesn't have a proper introductory section nor a proper opening sentence, nor does does it say enough to make it clear why the topic is notable. And it could use copy-editing of a number of different sorts. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I recently had a look at the page on Shinichi Mochizuki's Inter-universal Teichmüller theory and found it to have several problems. First it is far from having a neutral point of view (the most flagrant example of this being the complete omission of the fact that very few mathematicians accept Mochizuki's idea to say the least, as illustrated for example by this blog post: https://galoisrepresentations.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/the-abc-conjecture-has-still-not-been-proved/ and the discussion following it). Second (perhaps this point is more my personal impression) it has no discernable mathematical content and is basically useless as an introduction to the theory as far as I am concerned.
I think that the page as it stands should not exist on Wikipedia. On the other hand it seems to me that mentioning IUT on Wikipedia is important, and I'd like to suggest the following to take care of this in what I believe is a better way:
I think this is a rather touchy subject (witness some discussions on blog comments, eg. here: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9871) and this is why a discussion here might be needed. jraimbau ( talk) 15:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Primefac perhaps some page protection is in order, like 30/500 to weekld out all the SPAs noted. Legacypac ( talk) 00:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I have edited the page on abc to better reflect the fact that Mochizuki's work is currently not accepted as providing a proof of the conjecture. The main reference is the Persiflage blog post, including comments by Brian Conrad, which is maybe not ideal but I think this is the best quality source on the topic. I will try to revise the IUT page soon (after thinking a bit more it seems not to be the better idea to include it into S.M.'s page). jraimbau ( talk) 13:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Should there be a page titled Odometer (ergodic theory)?
There is now a page titled Markov odometer, which could probably use some work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Chadyoung ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding ridiculous "analogies" to mathematics and physics articles. Some of these are vaguely relevant, but rather useless (e.g., this). Others are clearly absurd (e.g., this and this). And others still seem to be purely vandalism (e.g., this). I'm not sure if this is subtle trolling, or just very poor judgement. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 17:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Robert Langlands is the 2018 winner of the prestigious Abel Prize and his article is nominated to be displayed on the main page. Please could someone more experienced with mathematics articles take a look to fix "Research section" in his article or his Langlands program which also needs attentions. Suggestion is also welcomed in the talkpage. – Ammarpad ( talk) 04:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:Teahouse#Separate language sets where the OP has asked whether the Wikidata interlanguage links for articles about cubic/quartic functions and equations respectively should be merged, are they separate topics or not? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I have made a proposal for splitting-off the complex-algebraic-geometry-related section of Hodge theory to a separate article at Talk:Hodge theory#Split off Hodge theory for complex projective varieties. Opinions from the editors who might have opinions on the matter are needed. -- Taku ( talk) 23:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Michael Hardy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Reddwarf2956 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just deleted 3 recursive definition formulas for very nontrivially defined constants conjectured to be transcendent irrational. Also in other articles about such hard to understand numbers like Feigenbaum constants explicit definition terms could clarify much furtherly and help classifying them. E.g. also in substance articles multiple chemical structure representations are often available so if they can be directly derived from a given defining explanation then why not specifying them explicitly? -- LKreissig ( talk) 19:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@ LKreissig: At this point you really need to explain in some comprehensible way what the things you added mean. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Is this a notable topic? Legacypac ( talk) 19:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I visit en.wp very seldom, so I leave you discuss this between yourselves : are external links to ( specifically related subpages of) mathcurve appropriate in pages about curves, or not ? (I tried to convince one of you they are, but he disagrees). Anne Bauval ( talk) 18:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Does not obvioisly meet PROF unless his work is notable. Reads a little spam like to me. Comments to the Draft talk page please Legacypac ( talk) 23:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Discussion here. -- JBL ( talk) 02:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
We plan to complete replacing Tidy with a different tool on all wikis by end-June. As part of this, we have identified pages that need some markup fixed. This is exposed by the Linter extension via the Special:LintErrors page. Only linter issues in the high-priority categories need to be addressed. It is sufficient to prioritize articles for now.
One of the linter categories is the
mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting category. You can see the
list of linter issues in the Article namespace here. Of those, there are a subset of issues that primarily affect math and other pages that use math. The effects can be particularly important here as
this example demonstrates. The rendering on the left is what you see on the wiki right now. The rendering on the right is what it will change to when Tidy is replaced. Notice how r kn = kn + 1 has changed to r kn = kn + 1. This is because the quotes are improperly nested in the <sub>
tag and needs to be fixed to reflect the intended rendering.
The edit links
in this listing of article namespace html5-misnesting errors shows you the exact malformed wikitext. My recommendation is to fix pages where the <sub>
and <sup
tags are shown as being misnested. I am also happy to give you a separate list of pages where sub and sup tags are misnested (about ~300 in all). Let me know if you have any questions.
SSastry (WMF) ( talk) 21:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
''x<sub>i</sub>''
. Though, in this case, it might be better to use {{
var}}. --
Izno (
talk) 00:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
<cite>
tag? I've never seen that before and I don't know what it's supposed to be doing. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 00:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
<cite>
is supposed to surround the titles of cited references. Its use there does not fit that description, and it does not appear to make a visible difference in the article. I think it can safely be removed. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 01:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Some of these seem not directly fixable; for example, in
Elias M. Stein, the problem is the following:
{{Infobox scientist|
...
| thesis_title = Linear Operators on L<sup>''p''</sup> Spaces | ... }}
Presumably, what's going on is that the template slaps '' ... '' around the title of the thesis. (And indeed the effect in the infobox there is funny: the p is not italicized.) But it is not clear to me what the "right" way to deal with this is. (There are also examples like
Georgia Benkart, where the problem is the title field in the cite book template.) --
JBL (
talk) 20:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
thesis_title = Linear Operators on L''<sup>p</sup>'' Spaces
seems to work. The first '' end the italics, before the <sup> and the second '' starts it again after the </sup> meaning the start and end of italics are not either side of a tag. You can check the new render behaviour by adding action=parsermigration-edit
to the url. E.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Elias_M._Stein&action=parsermigration-edit --
Salix alba (
talk): 00:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Just a gentle ping. I noticed that the sub-tag affected pages has not moved in over a week and is at 57 entries. Same with sup-tag affected pages that is at 161 entries. Another burst of fixing might bring the former to zero. SSastry (WMF) ( talk) 17:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, there's a proposal to delete all Wikipedia portals. Please see the discussion here. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 14:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Algebraic Geometry (journal) has been proposed for deletion by Randykitty, one of the regular editors on articles about academic journals. It looks to me like a legitimate new journal, but possibly one that is too new to pass WP:NJournals. Anyway, if you disagree with this proposal (and especially if you can find third-party publications about this journal that might increase its apparent notability) please feel free to unprod. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
A move request is ongoing at Talk:Symmetric graph#Requested move 8 April 2018, but it has little participation. Input would be appreciated. Dekimasu よ! 12:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The article Pseudomathematics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This uncited article is, so far as it goes, largely a piece of original research. The term "pseudomathematics" rarely crops up, and when it does it's used as a short hand way of saying that conventional mathematical techniques have been misused or misapplied. An example would be the backtest overfitting of financial data modelling, where the prefix "pseudo" has the same general meaning as it does in "pseudo-democracy". In other words, there is no field of endeavour called "pseudomathematics".
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Eric
Corbett 01:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. There is a dispute at Talk:Proportion that can use attention from the members of the project. —- Taku ( talk) 21:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
FYI, I've added a listing at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 26#Modern Mathematics. Further comments are welcome. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 03:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
About " Schröder–Bernstein theorem", [6], [7], [8], I wonder, how do we feel about excluded middle? Should its use be noticed always, or sometimes, or never, or what? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 11:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I have created a short new article titled Lévy–Steinitz theorem. The theorem states this:
I found that in the List of permutation topics there was no section on rearrangements of series, and I created one, titled Mathematical analysis, which now lists, among other things, this theorem.
I have added links to the new article from the following articles:
I have also created the following redirect pages:
(I haven't yet created redirects with a capital "T"; probably I'll do that soon if no one else does it first.)
So now:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
While we have good articles on Newton's method and Halley's method, our article on the more general Householder's methods is inadequate. In particular, there is no justification given for the claim that the higher order Householder's methods have higher order convergence to a simple root. Without that, I cannot determine what value of K is appropriate and thus how good or bad the method is in particular applications. JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Please could I have an opinion on Draft:Weyl Sequence which I am reviewing at AfC? Should it be moved to mainspace, or is it a duplication of any of these? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 12:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely. I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found some high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject.
What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.
This list is all "misnested tags". See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the {{ cot}} template. My first guess is that this template adds span tags, which don't work over multiple paragraphs. The second column shows some additional information about the error (please let me know if that's useful additional information).
Note that the highlighting from the lintid code won't work reliably after the article has been edited, so for pages with multiple errors, it's best to try to fix them all at once. For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 17:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
{{Citation | title = The Apéry's constant: {{math|ζ''(3)''}} }}
. It looks like the problem goes away if you remove the italics from math template, which is inside an already-italicized title field.
Whatamidoing (WMF) (
talk) 19:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out what is going on, what that IP editor from Taiwan has been doing the last few months (also on the talk page). Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 21:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if somebody would be kind enough to have a look at the above draft, which is currently sitting at Articles for creation. My question is whether it has sufficient Notability/content to warrant its own article, or whether the content could/should be merged in to the existing article, Sersic profile? Any comments gratefully received. If anybody who looks at it happens to be an Afc reviewer, they can, of course, Accept it as an article should it be warranted. Best regards. KJP1 ( talk) 05:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The article List of mathematical identities is suspiciously short. May anyone help expanding it? -- MaoGo ( talk) 23:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to clean up the article G-structure on a manifold. Is the proposal here Talk:G-structure_on_a_manifold#Merge_cleanup_proposal ok? -- TurionTzukosson ( talk) 10:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Over the past few months, I've added support for both Bluebook abbreviations (in law), and MEDLINE abbreviations (in medicine) to {{ Infobox journal}} and to the WP:JCW compilation. What's the standard, so to speak, for abbreviations in mathematics? MathSciNet? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason for abbreviating names of journals does not apply to Wikipedia, but it has been used out of habit. I prefer not to abbreviate them. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Alright, {{
Infobox journal}} now supports |mathscinet=
for when the abbreviations differ from the ISO 4 one. See
Annals of Mathematics. The infobox will prompt you to create redirects when you add the relevant abbreviation, just like it does for the ISO 4 one.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 13:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Please comment above. This concerns the usage of MathSciNet abbreviations in {{ infobox journal}}. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at Draft:Non-manifold topology and give a review. It's a technical article that really requires a SME to evaluate. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I've done some edits to make it conform to some basic Wikipedia conventions, but I haven't addressed the actual content. It contains this sentence:
So an adjective is defined as a verb? Obviously someone isn't all that great at writing complete sentences. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I think about making two kinds of related edits to some standard functions. I prefer to ask your opinion in order to be sure not to lose my time. Those edits are related to the presentations of some of the standard mathematical functions. Complex one and real ones.
Firstly, I think that Category:Visualization_(graphic) should have a subcategory «mathematical function representation». Indeed, when I look at a page such as Heat map and want to learn more about visualization of functions, I do expect to find pages like Domain coloring. But I do not expect to find IEEE Visualization. Both of those pages have category "Visualization_(graphic)". I guess this means that heat map and domain coloring should have a more precise category. This category would also include surface plot e.g.
By the way. Do anyone know if there is a «surface plot» somewhere on wikipedia. One which consider representing a function by plotting its surface. Becase currently, surface plot consider only radar related plot. And so, Heat map link to surface plot is probably wrong, however I do not know how to correct this link. I would create the page if you tell me that it does not exists yet.
Which lead me to my second point. What do you think about having a infobox for standard functions. This v would, as far as possible, contains the representation of the function using as many visualization technic as possible. (It would not be hard to generate them using some mathematical library. So there are no copyright problem to have them). I guess that the infobox should also contain standard information, such as the domain of definition (or the more standard one, e.g. for square root and log, where many domain can be chosen), its derivative (or jacobian), its antirderivative, the domain on which it is continuous, differentiable, etc...
Of course, some of those informations are already in the page of the functions. But I do believe that having a more standard presentation would help me. Since I guess I'm not alone, I assume it would also help other readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur MILCHIOR ( talk • contribs)
Just to report a strong impression I got here at WP: The acceptance of infoboxes at the valuable real estate at the header of an article might be equivocally. Purgy ( talk) 18:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
A proposal has been submitted to merge Category:Probability journals into Category:Statistics journals. Please add relevant arguments to the discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:John von Neumann#Should_von_Neumann_be_categorized_as_a_combustion_scientist? Paul August ☎ 10:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Kyuko has recently created Category:Jewish mathematicians and added several hundred articles to it (and going strong; the only interruption has been this edit). I do not have any principled opinion about whether this is good or bad, but possibly other editors might. -- JBL ( talk) 13:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
A category called "Jewish mathematicians" must be reserved for those who have explicitly declared their own adherence to Judaism, while a category called "Mathematicians of Jewish descent" can include all those for whom reliable sources indicate Jewish ancestry. See WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Could someone with five minutes of free time and nothing better to do take a look at the history of Join (sigma algebra) and see if the massive trimming down was legitimate? – Uanfala (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
This review page is for review of the nomination of Cantor's first set theory article for the status of a Good article. For instructions for reviewing the article, follow this link.
At this page one sees that this is currently one of four mathematics articles currently nominated for "Good article" status. Writing a review of any of them would be a contribution. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Langley’s Adventitious Angles could use some more eyes. There's a new editor edit-warring to insert what looks like original research to me, but I'd welcome the opinion of other experienced editors. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Should this be moved to mainspace? (or deleted?) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 21:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
We do not appear to have a biography of Michael Rathjen who appears to be an important person in mathematical logic. Please see [11]. JRSpriggs ( talk) 12:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
M22 graph, currently a redirect to Mathieu group M22, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 2#M22 graph because it cause Draft:M22 graph to be declined. Editors who understand these topics are invited to contribute to the linked discussion where their input is likely to be significantly helpful. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The redirect Exceptional curve, which currently targets Exceptional divisor, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 8#Exceptional curve. Input from editors who understand the topic would be of significant benefit - please comment there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
FYI, I started a requested move discussion at Talk:Immanant of a matrix. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 14:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The following are pages moved from the draftspace to mainspace by me:
Since I only skimmed the pages, it is possible that some may not be notable and in that case, they need to be nominated for deletion. (To repeat the above thread, these pages would have been deleted quietly; unfortunately, in current practice (not policy), that pages need some more work means deletion.) —- Taku ( talk) 08:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I find that mathematics is often written in first person in a way that other subjects are not. It's something I like / have gotten used to (or at least is professional in a mathematical context), but I sometimes get told that it creates an inappropriate tone or violates neutral point of view policies.
Do we have a consensus on what I would assume is something that's been discussed here before? I would like to nominate Group testing for featured article (eventually), so I want to clear up any potential issues. – ♫CheChe♫ talk 11:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I used to occasionally come across notices at the top of articles on mathematics saying the article is written like a personal reflection or essay, and I wondered why, since I didn't see anything in the article that looked like that. Ultimately I found out that it was because of things like this:
The word "we" was being construed literally by unthinking people who labeled article as essay-like for that reason alone and nothing else. You can't get much more inattentive than to do that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I think first-person should be vetoed in mathematics articles within regular prose. It starkly contrasts with the tone of the rest of the STEM articles around Wikipedia -- Wikipedia is not an academic journal or a conference, but an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias, even from other settings, do not use the first-person. By pronouncing "we," you also create an implied (but mostly superficial) personal tone to Wikipedia that I think is inappropriate for the setting. Stylistically, it just seems off -- not because first-person is used in a personal sense, but because it's connotation "smells" of personal sense. Atasato ( talk) 22:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd say not using "we" is in doubt preferred due to sounding more "encylopedic" and matching the language use in most math encylopedias or lexicons. However if some editor uses it, it certainly isn't NPOV violation or big oroblem, but rather marginal style issue that other editors are free to fix if they feel strongly about it.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 01:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Like Michael Hardy, I object to using silly {{ Essay-like}} cleanup templates if a mathematics article uses "we". I personally think it is generally preferable to rephrase the first person if possible. However, the first-person is a widespread stylistic convention in how reliable sources write about mathematics. So I think it is a valid stylistic choice. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 01:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Something else occurred to me, after reading Purgy's comment. Apart from issues with the first person plural that some readers find problematic, mathematics is largely written in an imperative mood, such as: "Assume that X is a compact space." This seems unavoidable (and it's not clear that it should be avoided, even if someone devises a way to eliminate all imperative verbs). But I've seen editors seriously insist that this imperative mood is inconsistent with encyclopedic writing, and call mathematics articles "essay-like" for this reason alone. It may be worth pointing out somewhere that mathematics largely must be written in this way, and that the use of first person plural is compatible with that mood. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 11:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Something is worse than the use of the first person, and is, nevertheless, widely used in Wikipedia. It is the use "must" with a mathematical object as a subject. For example, so "q must be one of the r's" instead of "so q is one of the r's". This example comes from Fundamental theorem of arithmetic#Proof, which contains several other examples. This use of "must" is so common in articles about elementary mathematics, that I had to look on only two articles for finding an example. D.Lazard ( talk) 18:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I recently encountered the article named by the above heading. Before long, I found my way to this Project and saw the FAQ, which quite well reflects several of my concerns about WP articles on technical subjects and mathematics. I am college-educated, but majored in English, not math or science. I placed tags on the Integrable article to call attention to the difficulty I believe all readers except those with math degrees will have understanding it. As I mentioned in my comment on the article Talk page, I can accept the highly technical nature of the text in the article body, but I firmly believe that the first sentence (or two) of the article can and should be written in plain English, so that even readers with nothing more than high school math (not including calculus) can understand what the article is about, even if they understand almost none of the details. I would like to invite any member of this Project to have a go at revising the article lead (lede)--even just the first sentence--in order to give the general reader a clear idea of the meaning of "integrable" as it is intended in the article. With such an improvement, I would be glad to remove the unpleasant 'incomprehensible' tag, which I added. Of course, anyone can remove it at any time, but I hope that will happen only after the first sentence is translated into a form of English that requires no specialized knowledge or prerequisites. DonFB ( talk)
Would someone mind giving Draft:Recurrence relations integration function a lookover. It is being deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Recurrence relations integration function. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Graph theory-savvy editors may wish to look at Kronecker graph, an article that has been expanded by a few SPAs (who may be operating together) with mostly copyright-infringing content. I've been chopping out the text that's directly copied from http://people.ee.duke.edu/~lcarin/Kronecker_Graphs.pdf for a few days now, but as a result the article has ended up looking very fragmented and written in shaky English. It's certainly an article that could use some improvement if anyone is interested. /wiae /tlk 15:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
A somewhat better version of our article " Space (mathematics)" is now refereed and published in WikiJournal of Sciences (and probably will be copied hereto). A precedent? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 17:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Also a printer friendly version (pdf file) is now available. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 06:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Now copied from WJS to Wikipedia. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I just created these four redirect pages:
It seems surprising that they didn't already exist. Is more such work in order? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Mathematics. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
First definition is as same as wikipedia article of monotone matrix. The other definition is here
This monotonic matrix is a integer rectangular matrix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E35D:2645:0:0:BA08:6E01 ( talk) 14:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
H-matrix is a matrix with its comparison matrix is M-matrix. It is useful in iterative method. We need an article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E35D:2645:0:0:BA08:6E01 ( talk) 14:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
There is now a project to migrate away from the texvc renderer for <math>
expressions.
This was the default a few years ago which produces PNG images, now we have a hybrid solution with uses MathJax in the backend to produce svg images and sometimes xml. There is still some legacy from texvc as it is used in the frist parsing step of the current engine. This means there are some idiosyncrasies in the syntax which differ from standard LaTex:
Current syntax | Suggested replacement | Comment |
---|---|---|
$ | \$ | redefinition would involve changing the character code |
% | \% | redefinition would involve changing the character code |
\and | \land | causes normal align environment to fail |
\or | \lor | see [14]; causes teubner to fail |
\part | \partial | acceptable if the document doesn't use sectioning with \part. |
\ang | \angle | this only conflicts with siunitx package. |
\C | \Complex | conflicts with puenc.def e.g. from hyperref package |
\H | \mathbb{H} | conflicts with text command \H{0} which is ő. |
\bold | \mathbf | |
\Bbb | \mathbb | |
\pagecolor | remove | not needed and not working anymore, done on en-wiki mainspace |
<ce>...</ce> |
<chem>...</chem> |
Chemistry environment, done on en-wiki mainspace |
The first step in the project will involve deprecating the old syntax and running a bot or semi-automated edits to change the syntax. These should not result in any visible change to the pages. The bot doing the work is User:Texvc2LaTeXBot which is currently seeking approval. Changes will also be made to the Visual Editor to produce the new syntax.
Subsequent stages in the project are discussed at
mw:Extension:Math/Roadmap, these involve some more complex problems with the <chem>
syntax. Eventually the texvc part will be removed completely and there may be some slight change to the rendered output. The main discussion of the project happens at
T195861 and your input is welcome.--
Salix alba (
talk): 15:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I invite other editors' opinions on this edit. (The user in question has been unilaterally making this change over dozens if not hundreds of articles on scientists, and is very abrasive about it. It seems deeply wrongheaded to me to put the postnomial in the lead sentence of the article, and moderately wrongheaded to put it into the infobox, but more discussion is needed than just two of us reverting each other.) -- JBL ( talk) 02:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
The "signature" section already gives all the postnomial letters that are necessary. :-) XOR'easter ( talk) 14:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 25#Acoptic polygon. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Category:Bplus-Class mathematics articles, which is within the scope of this wikiproject, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Here's a proposed deletion up for discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Lemma. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent
Here's another deletion discussion.
It appears to me that the nominator has misunderstood with astonishing completeness what the article is about.
Click on the linked page and post your opinion. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Did anyone ever think about running a bot on Wikipedia to improve mathematical citations based on math databases? Specifically an MR bot/ Project Euclid bot of sorts?
For instance, searching PE by DOI reveals that
is an entry for it. This is a closed access link, but it does lists
doi:
10.3150/17-BEJ959,
MR
3788173,
Zbl
06869876 as identifiers. The bot could add
MR
3788173,
Zbl
06869876to citations with
doi:
10.3150/17-BEJ959 in them.
Likewise, instance
MR
0334798 lists
[15] which is listed as "Full-text: Open access" and there is also
Zbl
1125.83309 listed as an identifier. The bot could add |url=
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1103858973
and |zbl=1125.83309
to citations with
MR
0334798 in them.
There are other links than PE in the MR database, but the general idea would be the same. Query various math databases by various identifiers, give the other identifiers when found, and open access links when found.
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to hear the community's opinion about these changes. For my own part, I think "famously" is quite applicable, and in academic writing, full names aren't necessary (and can even sound overly familiar). Thoughts? XOR'easter ( talk) 14:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP blocked. - DVdm ( talk) 21:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
FYI, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 4#Graphs by vertex and edge count, an old nomination which seems to have not been closed and just recently got attention again. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
This WikiProject's § Things to do section contains a table of suggested activities, with columns What and Where. Wanting to notify project members that a certain page – Monoidal t-norm logic – is too technical, I followed the first entry in the table, which links to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics/Lists. Imagine my surprise to read there – at the top of the page – that "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference" and a suggestion to "seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump". Yet the page contains a score of sections, each listing many items needing attention for various reasons. One of those sections and reasons is the Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics/Lists § Articles that are too technical. So I've dropped an entry in that list, and used the {{technical}} template in a section of the subject page, viz. Monoidal t-norm logic § Motivation, but thought that perhaps this talk page might be a more appropriate "forum".
Please tell me where WikiProject Mathematics contributors go to request action or chew the fat with each other, if not on the pages pointed to by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics page??? Wherever the preferred hangout is, that's where the WikiProject should point people – not to an "inactive" page. yoyo ( talk) 15:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to draw your attention to a Simon's problems draft article. The reviewing process appears to have been done by individuals with little or no science knowledge. I know the subject is notable and even German wikipedia has beaten us to it ( see article here). Any help pls? Thankx! Ema--or ( talk) 01:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Can some editors from the project look into and help resolve the discussion at the Lindelöf hypothesis article's talkpage? Thanks. Abecedare ( talk) 04:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone solve the edit war over there? RandNetter96 ( Talk) ( Contributions) 20:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Just stumbled across Krassimir Atanassov, a biography of a mathematician. The only thing resembling a source is an external link to his website. The multiple mentions of Smarandache caught my attention. Should it be an article? -- 2601:142:3:F83A:F5C6:4523:71E3:A4A7 ( talk) 16:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Per a question at the ref desk: is the implication correct? Both articles formerly claimed it was, but an editor has removed the claim from Fermat-Catalan conjecture. - 2601:142:3:F83A:9D73:4BE:2A07:E50A ( talk) 15:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
We seem to have this new article: Square root of 4.
I don't think we need to be informed of the first hundred digits after the decimal point in the principal real square root of 4. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Deacon Vorbis: : That content was in the edit history of the article that got deleted years ago. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It has become clear that there are a number of rather fervent mathematics-focused editors who have not actually bothered to read Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and who think that they get to determine whether or not to apply post-nominals in the lead of an article (and who are feverishly deleting these honours). These editors appear to be individuals who come from non-Commonwealth countries (e.g., the United States) who have no knowledge of how post-nominal letters are applied for various honours systems or royal societies. For the record, Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that post-nominals (e.g., OC FRSC) should be included in the lead of an article after the subject's name. See: MOS:POSTNOM Bueller 007 ( talk) 16:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
A next discussion about graphs categories takes place here. Your comments are welcome. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
MathXplore has been adding a bunch of links to references via the website arxiv-vanity.com, rather than direct links to the arXiv. I am having difficulty using the search to determine exactly how widely this site is linked from WP. Has this been discussed here before? Do people have thoughts about whether this is good/bad/not important? -- JBL ( talk) 18:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC){{
cite arxiv|arxiv=}}
/ {{
cite journal|arxiv=}}
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 20:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Someone suggested that Bott–Samelson resolution and Bott–Samelson variety be merged back in July 2015. However no one made a case and it was closed last October, but then reopened by the original person who said they didn't make a case for merger because it was clear the two articles discuss the same thing. I don't really understand the merge process, could someone take a look at these and merge them if they should be merged? JustOneMore ( talk) 05:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, there are two interlinked discussions about the graphical representation of vertex figures for polyhedra, and especially uniform polyhedra, at Talk:Vertex figure#Illustrations and Talk:Archimedean solid#Images. These diagrams are used in a large number of infoboxes and tables in polyhedron articles and so it is important to build consensus on their appearance. More contributors to the discussion/s would be helpful, as they are getting bogged down. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 20:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) [updated 05:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)]
They may be fine, but the editor is the author of fringe self-published books and busy promoting himself here. That's not an issue for the project, but I'm not sure how competent he is. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
In the one-way functions article, under the Candidates for one-way functions section there is a subsection for "Discrete exponential and logarithm" and "Elliptic curves". Now I don't know much at all about this area, but isn't it specifically the "elliptic curve discrete logarithm function" which is a candidate as a potential one-way function? If so should the elliptic curve subsection be merged with the discrete exponential and logarithm section? JustOneMore ( talk) 04:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
This deletion discussion for a mathematics journal may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, could anyone here help fix a few links to disambiguation pages?
Bolza surface has a link to Perturbation, Finsler manifold has a link to Minkowski norm and Simplicially enriched category has a link to Simplicial category.
I don't know whether there is a good target article for the links in question, or whether the link should be removed, as my level of Mathematics is not advanced enough to understand these topics. Thanks for your help. Iffy★ Chat -- 12:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi would someone be able to check the 'Newton–Cotes formulas page; Closed Newton-Cote formulae' section, specifically the (3rd and 4th) rows of formulae in the table...
1) The Simpson's 3/8 rule & Boole's rule do not appear to be consistent with the Trapezoid rule and Simpsons rule in that where they have used (b-a), I feel like they should have used (b-a)/n where n is the degree. This appears to be what they have done for trap/simpsons rule. The linked Boole's rule wiki page itself does have the initial coefficient as 2*h/45 and I believe h := (b-a)/4, meaning that using the style implemented on the Newton Coates page, the first coefficient should be 1/90 (i.e. (2/45)/4), and similarly the 3/8th simpsons rule should start with 1/8. As a reference I'm comparing to the Introduction to Numerical Analysis Springer book by Stoer and Bulirsch who provide a table for comparative purposes.
2) In the book I've just mentioned (page 126 for the table), the names of the interpolation schemes are different too. That reference names the degree 4 scheme as Milne's rule, whereas the wiki page seems to refer to places where it is called Boole's rule, and yet it uses Milne's rule for a different formula further down. I feel like (at least personally) I'm getting confused by all the names. Is there any way to clear it up?
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a0c:5bc0:40:107c:c479:58f9:bf8b:42cf ( talk)
Here is the article: Georg Cantor's first set theory article
Here is the "Good Article" review page: Talk:Georg_Cantor's_first_set_theory_article/GA2
I created the page originally, but most of what's there now is the work of Robert Gray, a historian of mathematics who has published refereed scholarly articles on this topic.
Work is needed to respond to the recommendations on the review page in order for this article to be promoted. There is Robert Gray is on vacation and not aware of the current situation. Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I've put some comments here on the review page. Opinions? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Is it just me, or are a lot of articles getting promoted to "vital"? I don't normally pay attention to that sort of meta classification, but SSTbot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been promoting lots of articles that I wouldn't have thought should be considered "vital". For example, Bessel function is rated as "mid" importance by WikiProject Mathematics. Should it be only mid importance, but also vital? (Note: I have no strong opinions about any of this. I'm just noting that something doesn't quite jibe about it.) Sławomir Biały ( talk) 20:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Yeah, a bot for tagging these articles ran today. The current "quota" is 1200 articles (total) at level-5, including 300 at level-4 (biographies excluded from that count). My mental threshold is whether the topic would be discussed in a book-length mathematics encyclopedia. That's probably anything at "mid" priority or higher;
Bessel function is One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
and is probably important enough to be listed (no opinion on
Quantum cohomology).
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 01:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Wiki Education is hiring an experienced Wikipedian for a part-time (20 hours/week) position. The focus of this position is to help new editors (students and other academics) learn to edit Wikipedia. The main focus of the position is monitoring and tracking contributions by Wiki Education program participants, answering questions, and providing feedback. We're looking for a friendly, helpful editor who like to focus on article content, but also with a deep knowledge of policies and guidelines and the ability to explain them in simple, concise ways to new editors. They will be the third member of a team of expert Wikipedians, joining Ian (Wiki Ed) and Shalor (Wiki Ed). This is a part-time, U.S. based, remote or San Francisco based position.
We are especially interested in people with a background editing maths-related articles. See our Careers page for more information. Ian (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 20:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
A nice proof is added recently to " Schröder–Bernstein theorem" by KeesDoe, see here and here, and challenged by "citation needed". It is very easy to check the proof... can it survive unsourced? can it be sourced? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 10:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
An IP editor is inserting masses of what looks to me to be original research at Duodecimal and reverting without comment whenever anyone (or at least me) tries to prune it back again. More eyes on the article would be helpful. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
There has been a lot of material added to the fringier sections of this article (k-torial, superfactorial, hyperfactorial) by an IP editor over the last month or so. I've been meaning to look it over to see to what extent it is decent, but keep failing to make the time. So I am dropping this here as a reminder to myself/an invitation to anyone else who wants to take a look. -- JBL ( talk) 12:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Is the article titled Holor worth keeping? Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I just stumbled across Supergolden ratio, which attributes to the source
The Changing Shape of Geometry: Celebrating a Century of Geometry and Geometry Teaching, "4.13". Mathematical Association of America (2003). Cambridge University Press. pp. 320–326. ISBN 9780521531627.
the following paragraph, as well as a corresponding sentence in the lead:
The supergolden rectangle is common in everyday life. The ratios of the sides of rectangular household objects like Sunday newspapers and Cornflakes packets are within half of a percent of 1.46557…, the supergolden ratio. This is because the supergolden rectangle is a good balance of aesthetic (The supergolden algebraic relationship x3=x2+1 is similar to the golden algebraic relationship x2=x+1, but the supergolden geometric relationship is somewhat more complicated than the golden geometric relationship.) and practical (The supergolden rectangle's proportions are more suited for various roles than those of the golden rectangle, which is too narrow for many uses.), allowing it to become widely used in society. However, while the supergolden rectangle is the most common, other proportions are also commonly used, including √2 (paper), ρ (Weetabix box), and φ (softback book).
(A good comparison is the article golden ratio.) I do not presently have access to the complete relevant section of the source (Google books cuts off, and I am traveling) but I thought others might want to take a look. -- JBL ( talk) 12:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
FYI, I'm proposing a stronger style convention for special characters which are often seen in math-related articles. The idea is to use Unicode characters like ÷ instead of HTML entities like ÷, except in cases where characters can be confusing or there's an existing guideline to do something else (like with fractions and superscripts). If you'd like to read and/or comment, the latest version is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Fourth draft. Thanks! -- Beland ( talk) 06:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh hi everyone, I hadn't noticed more discussion was happening here.
... that a volunteer would quietly change..., and the Danaans' present
"No one should go around punishing people for not using the preferred system up front."looks like shafts of satire. May I point you to my writing above:
"I am an expert in the guidelines, which you constantly disrupt." and "I don't care a sh*t about you toiling to restore meaning, which is against (my) guidelines."??? Being welcome in this specific mode is bluntly deterrent. I oppose to establishing this revised WP:MOS with all my negligible might. BTW, I looked at the discussion with D. Eppstein et al., too. Purgy ( talk) 14:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Your comments on
Draft:Residual intersection are welcomed. Please use either
Yet Another Articles for Creation Helper Script by enabling
Preferences →
Gadgets → Editing → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{
afc comment|Your comment here. ~~~~}}
directly in the draft. Thank you.
Sam
Sailor 08:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
As far as I understand, an anon is inserting a nonsensical "Vector Nuclear of Photon Released" to many articles. He is pushing his "theory" presented here, here and here (signed by Bilal Mohamed). His IP numbers: 196.224.17.232, 197.28.160.228, 197.28.165.239. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 13:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I see that Category:Prime numbers doesn't have any articles about specific prime numbers within it, aside from the subcategories for 2, 3, and 7, and a few very large prime numbers, e.g. Belphegor's prime. Meanwhile, there are plenty of specific prime numbers in Category:Integers. Is this by design? Seems to me that "Prime numbers" could be a subcategory of "Integers", with all the prime numbers moved down from Integers to Prime numbers, but maybe that's not normal in the mathematics part of Wikipedia. Nyttend ( talk) 01:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Is this a notable journal (in the sense it can belong to mainspace)? -- Taku ( talk) 23:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Domdeparis has recently been going around removing mentions of Erdos-Bacon numbers in various articles, citing this RFC about Natalie Portman. At least one of these removals ( Daniel Kleitman) is clearly inappropriate, another ( Danica McKellar, where it was supported by a USA Today article) seems dubious, and I have not checked the rest. (By contrast, removing it from Portman's article is obviously reasonable.) Since this is taking place over several articles, I thought broader discussion would be good. -- JBL ( talk) 15:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
which measures the "collaborative distance" in authoring academic papers between that person and Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős—and one's Bacon number—which represents the number of links, through roles in films, by which the individual is separated from American actor Kevin Bacon.whereas in reality the Erdős number
describes the "collaborative distance" between mathematician Paul Erdős and another person, as measured by authorship of mathematical papers.. If you take some time to search the people who are supposed to have this number most of them did not author mathematical papers at all and some were simply named as collaborators. This kind of thing IMHO should not be in an encyclopedia. If one want to point out that an actor has also an academic background then this can be done in prose without resorting to a meme and the same for an academic with experience in the movie business. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Will someone please review this draft with regard to whether it should be accepted as an article? In particular, does it appear to be academically sound? Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
The creator, Schiszm seems to be a competent academic writer and my gut says this surely should be a notable subject, but the draft needs to be substantially reworked to fit in WP, particularly in terms of the style and tone. Please advise and assist the original contributor. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Please... Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 16:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
While there are many versions of paraconsistent logic (which might itself be an obstacle to developing paraconsistent mathematics), I feel that most of them derive from an attempt to avoid making a choice when confronted with a contradiction. If one fails to accept disjunctive syllogism, then one will fail to commit oneself to a particular development of the 'correct' alternative. The article on paraconsistent logic recognizes that most of them are weaker than classical logic. The result of this is that one's development of mathematics will be crippled. JRSpriggs ( talk) 01:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#It's_time_to_euthanize_Wikipedia. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
OP blocked two days for personal attacks. - Roxy, the dog. barcus 14:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
If Michael Hardy does retire, that's relevant to this WikiProject, as he has edited a lot of Mathematics articles. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
To keep an unfolding drama focused in the places most appropriate for it, rather than letting it sprawl across the backrooms of Wikipedia?yeah pretty much Galobtter ( pingó mió) 15:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The "personal attacks" to which "Roxy" refers consist of my declining to recant an accusation. When I'm the target, it's an "accusation"; when "Roxy" is the target, it's a "personal attack" regardless of whether it's a factual statement. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Boris Tsirelson. While it is certainly not appropriate to "spread drama" over various project pages, shadowing users to censor their drama on those various project pages doesn't strike me as particularly appropiate either. The regular users/project members of those projects pages can decide for themselves whether they want to close/cut short/archive a discussion or not.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 21:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Whatever the issues are concerning Michael Hardy and his behavior elsewhere (see above section "Wikipedia requiescat in pace") I want to point out that Michael, in his 16 years here, and with over 200,000 edits, has made an enormous contribution to Wikipedia's mathematics content and in addition has been an extremely valuable member of this project. In my 14 years as a member of this project, I can personally attest to the significant positive impact Michael has made here. It would be a shame if that were to come to an end. Paul August ☎ 23:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Redirects -4 (number) and -999 (number), which presently target 4 (number) and 999 (number) respectively, have been nominated for deletion at RfD. You are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 3#-4 (number). Thryduulf ( talk) 10:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I think that WENO methods are notable and important. We should change one of them ( WENO and Weno) to a disambig page.-- Sharouser ( talk) 15:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
04:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Could somebody take a look at Draft:Plane normal form and leave review comments on the draft. It requires a SME to review properly. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Finally, at last, all remnants of disagreement by an highly meritorious math editor vanished to oblivion for any casual passers by. What a satisfaction for a certain gang.
I myself bemoan mostly that also the despicable efforts to completely eradicate, and when this did not work, to brutally silence any utterance of empathy.
I hope this is ignored, but I expect it to be deleted, because talking about silencing math editors is off-topic for the WikiProject Mathematics. In any case I can do no other. Purgy ( talk) 08:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
IS related to the question of editing math articles on wikipedia.Purgy ( talk) 13:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
If you want to whine about some user's conduct, go do it on their talk page or on some drama board -- that is not what this page is for. Everyone who watches this page is aware of the issue. I will not comment here further.
Mathematical practice, an old (2004) but still-unsourced and short article, has been proposed for deletion. Anyone want to try rescuing it? — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
02:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
So, many of the older mathematical articles are not well referenced (indeed may be unreferenced), because (a) they are old, and WP:V was not the first content policy, and (b) there was a view, which I would articulate in this way, "full inline referencing does not help to see the wood from the trees in understanding advanced mathematics". I deprecate the by-passing of WP:BEFORE in nominations for deletion. In the case of older articles, I would like to underline the point that if they predate Google Books, the facile step of searching Google Books should be carried out. Come on guys, the Web is not static, and new potential sources are posted online all the time. Nominating some article started in 2004 for deletion should not be done without the due diligence specified in the guideline. I'm quite happy to beat anyone over the head with it if they think it is kind of OK to use AfD as a cleanup area.
Which brings us to whether mathematical practice is an encyclopedic topic. Well, it is. It is quite hard to explain what "mixed mathematics" as mentioned in Mathematical Tripos actually was without the concept. And so to explain why my alma mater has DPMMS and DAMTP, and why both Hawking and fluid dynamicists had offices in the latter. That is, it may not be the kind of concept an "internal" view of mathematics in the 21st century relies on, but it has a great deal of traction in placing mathematics socially and historically. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Update on September 22: To resolve the confusion described in the following paragraphs, I have now installed my rewrite of Section 2 of the page for Beltrami equation, my new version being a cookbook of Gauss's technique. For more details, see Talk:Beltrami equation. Unless someone else finds themself confused, the issue can now probably be considered resolved.
LyleRamshaw ( talk) 17:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The page for Beltrami equation underwent a significant rewrite in mid-2012. User:Mathsci added Section 2, which discusses Gauss's technique for constructing isothermal coordinates on a Riemannian 2-manifold whose metric is real-analytic. I am quite interested in that technique, but I can't follow the argument presented in Section 2. I described my confusion in a posting on Talk:Beltrami equation back in June, with no response so far. I recently posted a query to User talk:Mathsci as well. They haven't responded; but that isn't surprising, since they were recently hospitalized.
An Australian grad student named Yi Huang referred to Section 2 in a 2013 posting of his to MathOverflow: [25]. Huang's posting suggests that some of the equations in Section 2 may have their variables somehow scrambled. Huang also apparently interprets Section 2 as approximating the isothermal coordinates by computing successive terms of their power series. That's a reasonable approach, but I didn't have that approach in mind when I tried to read Section 2.
User:Mathsci references Volume IV of Spivak (pages 314-317 in the third edition, pages 455-460 in the second edition) as their source. I have read the argument in Spivak, and I now understand that argument well enough that I have successfully used Mathematica to numerically approximate isothermal coordinates in a simple but nontrivial test case. I have posted a possible new version of Section 2 to Talk:Beltrami equation, explaining Gauss's technique as I now understand it. Unfortunately, I still don't understand what is going on in the current version of Section 2.
Does some Wikipedia math editor know enough differential geometry to help me out with the current Section 2, or to comment on my proposed new version?
LyleRamshaw ( talk) 17:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Does the list of polygons have any value or is it just Listcruft that ought to go for AfD? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 18:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I have collected several articles which contain links to DAB pages on math maths mathematics-related topics where expert attention is needed. If you solve one of these puzzles, remove the {{
disambiguation needed}} tag from the article, and post {{
done}} below.
already Done
|
---|
(last 2 dealt with by Michael Hardy) jraimbau ( talk) 11:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC) |
Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 03:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if anyone would be willing to look at this draft: Draft:Schwarzschild's equation for radiative transfer. One of the people involved in our Fellows program accidentally submitted it to AfC and I was wondering if anyone would be willing to look at it and if it's ready, accept it through AfC. I can't do it myself since it's a conflict of interest and I would also prefer that someone more familiar with mathematics look over it to make sure that there isn't anything major to be resolved. Thanks! Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 13:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
An apparently new editor has created an enormous number of redirects and relatively worthless articles. Examples include:
I may have missed a few categories of questionable (in my opinion) articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Xayahrainie43: has also created 271 (number) (which is fine) and a truly enormous number of ASCII-related redirects (which I'm less convinced are OK; ASCII 61 is just useless, while I am likely to request deletion of all those redirects similar to '!' or \54 as actively harmful). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Has there been any consensus for this change which reduced the accepted range for integers which should have individual pages to 170? It looks like an undiscussed arbitrary change to me. At least, not rationale was offered in the edit summary. Spinning Spark 12:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic, flame bait
|
---|
The worm obviously ended with the fish, the fishermen, ... I don't care. Repent!
Purgy (
talk) 13:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
|
Just wondering (cf. [26]): in the first sentence of a math article, to establish context, is "commutative algebra" considered understandable to the non-math readers? I myself tend to avoid the term, which seems a bit jargon-y and favor ones like "algebra" or "abstract algebra". Similarly, I avoid "functional analysis", which may not be understandable to readers who, gasp, don't know Hilbert spaces. I don't know a good alternative for "algebraic geometry", so I tend to use that one in the first sentence. -- Taku ( talk) 23:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I am the author of the edit that motivates this thread [27]. In this specific case, the beginning was "In abstract algebra and algebraic geometry, the spectrum of a commutative ring R, ...". In my opinion, the words "algebra" and "geometry" suffices for everybody to know that it is about mathematics. For people who know mathematics a little, I think that commutative algebra is much more informative, as there are many textbooks that having this phrase in their title and introducing the concept of the spectrum of a ring. On the other hand, no textbook of "abstract algebra", if any, introduces the concept. My edit being reverted, I have replaced "abstract algebra" by "algebra".
Discussing this particular edit should be in the talk page of this article. However, behind this case, there is a general question that deserves to be discussed here. Many article begin with In
abstract algebra
. This supposes implicitly that everybody understand the difference between "algebra" and "abstract algebra". My personal opinion is that "abstract algebra" is an old-fashioned term that is no more used in mathematics, except in teaching or (and this is essentially the same thing) for the study of algebraic structures for themselves, independently of their use in other branches of mathematics. For this reason, my opinion is that, in almost all cases, "In
abstract algebra" should be replaced by "In
algebra".
D.Lazard (
talk) 10:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
(Thank you all for the responses.) Like before, the issue seems to be the tension between serving readers with some math background and those without it. "commutative algebra" is certainly more precise and thus informative than say "algebra". And, as Lazard said (and I'm in agreement), "abstract algebra" is not the common term used by specialists (for example, I don't really use it). But this seems to be similar to the case of a mathematical analysis; it is not the term commonly used by specialists; since other terms like functional analysis or harmonic analysis are more specific (thus informative) and "mathematical" is redundant among math people. Maybe "abstract" serves the similar role? My view is that the first sentence is mainly for establishing the context, especially for math articles (even that means not telling what it is when that depends the readers having an appropriate background). And so, again, "in commutative algebra" sounds problematic for this purpose. (Incidentally, Japanese people, both in teaching and research, almost never use "abstract algebra" and so the matter is heavily language/region/culture-dependent.) -- Taku ( talk) 21:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello to all, I have just created a new bio for the above person who is an Emeritus professor of Operational Research at the LSE. She co-defined the branch and bound algorithm in 1960 which from what I can gather was a big deal as it helped process the Travelling salesman problem. I'm trying to find some more biographical information basic or otherwise but I am coming up short. If anyone has any sources or wishes to contribute I'd be very grateful. cheers. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)As a separate issue, n-ary probably should be a disambiguation page, including at least
But I would need help setting it up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
If I understand correctly I think that the pages Schur_functor#Examples and Young_tableau#Applications_in_representation_theory clash in the way they talk about Young diagrams classifying irreducible representations.
The Young tableau page explains it nicely if I understand correctly, GL(n) has irreducible representations indexed by weights and if all the weights are positive then we get a young diagram, conversely if we have a young diagram with at most n rows then we get a weight. If you then look at the Schur functor page it says that given a young diagram with each row having length at most n, then the Schur module corresponding to that diagram is the representation with highest weight λ.
I'm pretty sure that in fact the highest weight should be λt. (I.e. if you have have a weight λ then create the young diagram associated to λ and then take its transpose, then the schur module associated to this diagram is then the wanted representation)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to mention this possible issue/mistake, let me know if it is not.
-- 144.82.8.225 ( talk) 17:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone make sense of these two edits? (They adjust how numbers are displayed in articles about languages that use base-12 number systems.)
More broadly, Xayahrainie43 has been drawing a lot of attention here recently, and for those who are interested in the drama boards, I started a thread at ANI about them. -- JBL ( talk) 14:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
On the browser on which I'm viewing this page, the display above renders \oint in an absurd way. It makes the integral sign with the circle a lot fatter than all other integral signs, and the subscript C is far too far to its right. I put the same code into an actual LaTeX document and got perfectly reasonable results, not like those I see here. Do others see the same thing? Can this problem somehow get corrected? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Deacon Vorbis: What do you mean by "when it was changed"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
\oint
didn't work at all), and I've been unable to find it again. I was hoping the texvc experts would know more. Thanks for reporting,
Salix alba; would it be worth mentioning the placement of the integral limits as well? –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 14:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Periodic table of topological invariants ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Even after checking all three references, I'm unsure if this is supposed to be a concept in mathematics or in physics. I'm also unsure that it meets notability guidelines or that everything in this article is in the references (and is not WP:OR). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I came across this draft while reviewing the WP:AFC queue; I'm not sure if theorems are considered notable for Wikipedia, or whether this falls under WP:NOTMANUAL. If a project member could advise, that would be great. (I'm not watching this page, so please ping me in case of any reply). -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Will someone please review and assess this draft? My first thought was that it was too technical for someone (myself) who has forgotten a lot of higher mathematics in fifty years. (I have forgotten all of the math that I learned in college. I still remember the intermediate algebra, trigonometry, and first-year calculus that I learned in high school.) On further reading, it appears to be largely original research by Dixon seeking to publish his own research in Wikipedia. So one of my questions is whether this work has already been published in mathematical journals.
Should it be declined as consisting of original research, or should it be declined as needing to be revised to be less difficult to understand, or should it be declined as not being sufficiently notable among mathematicians, or should it be accepted? Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
After brief research, I am still not sure that an article on Dixon algebra passes notability. It definitely won't be understandable by anyone but mathematicians and mathematical physicists. That doesn't in itself mean that there shouldn't be an article. The references are nearly all either by Geoffrey Dixon of the University of New Hampshire, or by Cohl Furey, whose research is largely about octonions. What I think that we need is an article on Geoffrey Dixon, who has made interesting contributions in math and outside math and appears to satisfy academic notability. Dixon appears to be trying to use Wikipedia to publicize his research rather than to publicize himself, which may have to do with being a mathematician. I think that I will decline the draft, but if I am asked to review Draft:Geoffrey Dixon, I think that I will accept it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the draft in the tittle to Modos. I don't have an expertise to properly review it (i.e., can't make sense of it) and thus it can benefit from the attentions from the other editors. Regards. -- Taku ( talk) 23:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I came across this in the WP:AFC queue. I'm not sure if this subject qualifies for inclusion. If a member of the project could let me know, that would be great. (Please ping me as I'm not watching this page). -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno ( talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Discussions regarding some unusual editing occurred at X, E, duodecimal (and in several other places on that page). Does any information at User:Xayahrainie43/duodecimal have an encyclopedic purpose? Please offer opinions at the deletion discussion. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
A wishlist item may interest people here: meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Reading#Functional and beautiful math for everyone. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
A question both deep and profound,
Is whether a circle is round:
In a paper by Erdős,
Published in Kurdish,
A counter-example is found.
Author unknown (not me, although I could hazard a guess). I'll be back later with more mathematics-related links to DAB pages which require expert attention, I'm collecting another new bunch. Narky Blert ( talk) 22:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
It wouldn't have occurred to me that anyone would think "Erdős" rhymes with "Kurdish" if I hadn't seen this. I pronounce the "Er" in "Erdős" like "air", rhyming with "chair" and the "ur" in "Kurdish" like the "r" in "ring", and the vowel in the second syllable of "Erdős" like the German "ö", and I make the second syllable of "Erdős" rhyme with "fish". I have no idea what degree of correctness there may be in my pronunciation of the second syllable of "Erdős". Maybe approximate rhymes work better when you hear them that when you read them (maybe except the ones that are standard and expected). Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Deine Zauber binden wieder
Was die Mode streng geteilt;
Alle Menschen werden Brüder
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.
Ach n"eige", Du schmerzensr"eiche", Dein Antlitz gnäd"ig" meiner Not ...Gretchen's prayer, noticing to be pregnant; in Faust, J.W.v.Goethe. The quoted parts are taken to rhyme, because the sounds belonging in German to "ei" and "i" are quite neighbored, as are the pronunciations of "g" and "ch" in several regional dialects. I could not call into my awareness any word from the English language that ends in a sound, reminding me directly of how "Erdős" does. Thank you! Purgy ( talk) 15:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Anyone want to participate in a silly discussion about symmetry? At Fountain (Duchamp), a long-term editor of that article is edit-warring to include sourced material claiming that the piece was rotated 90 degrees around "its axis of symmetry" from its normal position, despite the clear evidence of a photo showing that it has no axis of symmetry and that the change from its normal position is a 180 degree rotation. See also Talk:Fountain (Duchamp)#HOW many degrees?. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I've been going through some set theory books lately. I have the habit of going through Wikipedia articles about specific topics in things I'm reading in order to chase some references or get just a bit more of information. So I saw the class article is deficient in some aspects (feels more like my own class notes than an encyclopedic, referenced entry). Since I don't want to come and mess up and then have someone revert my good faith first edits, I want to ask some clarification:
Broadly, these are my concerns about editing. These concerns reflect the ways in which I believe I can improve this article. The reason I'm asking here instead of the talk page for the article is that I feel more people watch this than that other one. Thanks a lot to whoever reads and responds. -- Paper wobbling sound ( talk) 01:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
at Talk:Fountain (Duchamp)#HOW many degrees?. Editors here may like to lurk, as I've been doing, or jump into the fray, on what has turned into one of the most interesting WP:MINUTIA discussions I've seen (the wrong word, as my reference isn't to Chionanthus but to very tiny points being discussed at length - I just don't know how to spell it). My obvious reason for alerting those here is not to facilitate any kind of resolution (which seems to have been partly met with a new edit on the page which doesn't answer, but wordsmithily sidetracks, the question: "How many degrees?") but is solely because I am enjoying the spectacle of it and want the discussion to continue. Randy Kryn ( talk) 20:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Reading/Functional and beautiful math for everyone and m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Editing/Make the math tag support non-Latin languages appear to be the only math-related proposals on the Community Wishlist. Voting (straight up approval voting; editors can support as many or as few wishes as they want) ends in about four days. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
A new student editor created Division by infinity, which could I think be a good counterpart to our existing page Division by zero, but it just wasn't ready yet ( WP:OR-ful, WP:ESSAY-ish, etc.). I have therefore moved it into Draft space. This seemed a less hostile approach than dumping them into AfD, which seemed a likely eventuality otherwise. (I wouldn't have moved it unilaterally if anyone else had edited it other than its creator.) XOR'easter ( talk) 16:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)