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.
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. [1]): 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 [2]. 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 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.
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. [1]): 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 [2]. 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)