I posted details of my problem at the TP there, but additionally take the freedom to submit this here to a broader public:
Please, could someone more dignified than I am take care about adding either missing or more reasonable base cases in the recurrence relations in this article? Both my efforts to either generally have as the base case some not particularly coined as one of the harmonic numbers, or to specifically introduce it at places in specific need, were promptly reverted, ignoring that is already in use at the end of this section. Thanks for taking in consideration. Purgy ( talk) 10:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello
Sorry, I don't speak english, so be kind when you read me.
There is an error in Alhazen's problem article and also in Ibn al-Haytham article: we can read "This (i.e Alhazen's problem) eventually led Alhazen to derive a formula for the sum of fourth powers". There is a lot of treatises written by Ibn al-Haytham. In the The book of Optics, we can find the Alhazen' problem. Its solution has nothing to do with sum of the fourth powers (See A.I. Sabra, Ibn al-Haytham' lemas for solving Alhazen's Problem). The sum of four power is in an another treatise ( fi misahat al-mujassam al-mukafi On the Measurement of the paraboloid). You can read the source (Victor J. Katz (1995), " Ideas of Calculus in Islam and India). The banned contributor Jagged 85 made this mistake in june 2007 [1].
He added also a second error " Mathematicians were not able to find an algebraic solution to the problem until the end of the 20th century" It is non sens because before 20th, people knows already that intersection of two conics led to a quartic equation. (see Paul Bode (1892),« Die Alhazensche Spiegel-Aufgabe in ihrer historischen Entwicklung nebst einer analytischen Lösung des verallgemeinerten Problems to see all the solutions (algebraic, trigonometric, geometric...). p. 86 you can see an equation of the Huygens' hyperbole.
Can you fix these two errors ? Thank's. HB ( talk) 21:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I have collected yet another, but this time very small, batch of articles which include mathematics-related links to DAB pages. Expert attention in solving these puzzles would be welcome. If you solve any of them, remove the {{ dn}} tag from the article and post {{ done}} here.
Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 04:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Totally unproductive sniping -- discussion should be at Talk:Exponentiation. Other editors are invited to participate there. -- JBL ( talk) 15:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
User:Jasper Deng seems to think that explicitly mentioning the exceptions to a supposed "mathematical identity" is somehow inferior than just saying the equation holds "in general". I made some changes which he objected to for the use of elementary logical quantification, which I have now removed. He continues to revert for no apparent reason. He's also made some wildly wrong statements like "The convention in mathematics is to use intensional definitions" and has confused the logical negation of an equality with a quantified inequality. Stemdude ( talk) 02:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC) @ Stemdude: insists on an arcane interpretation of the ≠ symbol that is contrary to literally every textbook I've seen. I'm already at WP:3RR. I'd like someone with more experience in formal logic to chime in, however, I believe that his concerns are unfounded. Please leave any comments you may have on that article's talk page.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
|
Hi
1) It is César R. K. Stradiotto again.
2) To avoid any problems, now I just consulted the video tutorial to post complains about wikipedia pages. thanks.
3) The last post I did was about this page [List of two-dimensional geometric shapes]
[2], where the section
Polygons with specific numbers of sides -Quadrilaterals --Trapezus
were pointing to a Wikipedia "Pornhub"-about page.
4) I just saw the link were changed, but still not corrected: Now the link on Trapezus is pointing to a geographic place:
Trabzon
[3] (Just look for Wikipedia Trabzon, on Google).
That´s it.
Cordially
César R. K. Stradiotto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.85.185.93 ( talk) 15:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Look at the history of Lagrange's four-square theorem. I added a section revealing an invalid variant of the theorem. This means a variant of what the theorem says that would make it false. Three times, however, someone reverted me. Interestingly enough, there's an article, Beal's conjecture, which has a similar section that no one objected to. We need some kind of discussion on what the best rule for how articles on mathematical theorems should deal with sections like this. Georgia guy ( talk) 15:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Jamgoodman adds systematically Category:Mathematical objects to many mathematical articles. As almost all mathematical articles could belong to this category, I have open a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 23#Category:Mathematical objects. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Is this the same thing as Journal der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung? Or Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung?
Mostly asking to see if redirecting to German Mathematical Society would be appropriate. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone's looking for something to do, I just stumbled upon List of mathematical constants, which is in fairly rough shape. The table is somewhat broken, and perhaps has some columns that could simply be removed. It's a bigger project than I have time for right now, so I thought I'd mention here. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Is numerical modelling the same as mathematical modelling? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)numerical modellingbut it seems to be in the specific context of a climate model, possibly using numerical techniques to solve a box model. Certes ( talk) 22:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Currently, we have two articles: correspondence (mathematics) and binary relations. Set-theoretically speaking, there is no essential difference. Wikipedia insists a correspondence is an ordered triple (A, B, f) where f is a subset of , while a relation is just f or rather what f determines. While I can (a sort of) understand the difference, I don't think the distinction is enough for separate articles; basically the difference is like a difference between a function and the graph of a function (in fact, " binary relation" seems to be a bit confused about whether it wants to discuss a correspondence or a relation; see Binary relation#Is a relation more than its graph?). So, I'm inclined to just merge the two into one, except algebraic geometry bit in " correspondence (mathematics)" feels quite out of a place at " binary relation" and best to split off to correspondence (algebraic geometry). Thoughts? -- Taku ( talk) 21:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this article and assessing it? It was created by someone hired by Pazy's family and it was not submitted for review via WP:AFC. I've done a bit of minor clean up, but there's still some issues that need sorting, particularly with respect to the sourcing (it seems that most of them are to documents, etc. uploaded to Commons). I'm assuming the subject meets WP:ACADEMIC and is notable for an article to be written, but some serious trimming/rewriting might be needed to bring the article more inline with current policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a dispute as to whether map (mathematics) should be a disambiguation page or not; i.e., should redirect to map (disambiguation). Note the content of the page has already merged with function (mathematics). To resolve the conflict, inputs from more editors are needed; the main objection is from an editor who claims “a function is not a morphism in the category of sets.” —- Taku ( talk) 18:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
To add some context, I guess I just don’t see a point of an article explaining *terminology* as opposed to *concept* in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place to explain concepts, at least when math is concerned; terminology note is important, sure, but is of a secondary importance. For me, thus, this page is a disambig page in an effective sense since the concepts of a map are already discussed at other places like function (mathematics), morphism (category theory), homomorphism, etc. It doesn’t help that those “terminology” articles tend to be of low quality and low information ( #Correspondence vs. binary relation above is another instance). Not to mention, our readers often complain about those article... —- Taku ( talk) 19:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
See also: Talk:Map_(mathematics)#Suggestion to dedicate this article to the use of Map as a concept in mathematics when it is not a synonym of function. -- Taku ( talk) 23:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I’m probably sounding repetitive but here, a very similar type of an article: embedding. While there is a certainly a general concept of embedding, I don’t think it’s useful to use a “single article” to cover embedding in topology as well as those in other fields. Is there any benefit of doing (instead of having separate articles) that I’m not seeing? —- Taku ( talk) 20:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Trovatore, yes, functions are not defined as the arrows of **Set**. Functions are defined, and then **Set** is defined as an emergent concept. This shouldn't be news to anyone. Now, the other thing that happens is that there are two types of references: (1) Those that (modulo wording) define functions as correspondences (<- beware User:TakuyaMurata has been vandalizing this page too.) with the 'unique image property' and (2) Those authors who define (modulo wording, although in this case they tend to be more explicit) functions as relations with the 'unique image property'. There is a third in which they explicitly state (2) and then hand-waving-ly add the codomain to the function. Those are essentially in (1). As a result, reliable sources have two positions, one in which there is a function for each arrow of **Set** and one for which there are many. It looks like it has to be reminded, specially to User:TakuyaMurata, that Wikipedia works by presenting what is contained in reliable sources, not what random editors imagine the concepts should be in Mathematics. Cactus0192837465 ( talk) 13:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
To other editors, we (Cactus and I) need a tie-breaker for [5]. Please note we have Correspondence (algebraic geometry) and the rest in binary relation; my edit thus doesn’t mean any information loss. -- Taku ( talk) 17:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Root 2 and Root two are currently redirects to Square root of 2 and List of numbers respectively. They have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Root two where your comments are invited. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm currently expanding WP:CRAPWATCH (a project to detected predatory/unreliable sources) with various sources that document unreliable journals in various fields of research. Are there any such list mathematics for mathematics? Preferably externally sourced to reliable people, rather than personal opinion. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Assistance handling an WP:SPA at k shortest path routing and a related talk would be helpful. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics includes a table of articles tagged as probability and statistics with the {{
maths rating}}
template. But the table shows no articles. Can someone here take a look and fix it? Thank you.--
76.14.38.58 (
talk) 22:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Here I need to point out a conspicuous elephant in a room, but maybe that particular room doesn't get a lot of attention. Our article titled Wishart distribution contains this assertion:
[I]f n ≥ p, X has a Wishart distribution with n degrees of freedom if it has the probability density function
where is the determinant of and Γp is the multivariate gamma function defined as
Anyone who wants to understand that or make any use of it or do anything at all with it will instantly wonder how in Hell we're supposed to integrate a thing like that, i.e. with respect to which measure is this a density, or to put it another way, with respect to which variables over which set are we integrating? Observe that the argument is a positive-definite matrix and we may denote its entries by for . So a naive guess is we're talking about
so it would be just Lebesgue measure. But that raises question: since is symmetric, should we have or the like? So Lebesgue measure on a space of dimension And what are the bounds of integration? The bounds may seem messy, but I think I may know a way to deal with that neatly. But is that what is meant, or is there some standard measure on the space of positive-definite symmetric matrices that anyone who knows about it would expect to be used here, or what? In any case, answers to these questions ought to be in the article.
Same problem in Inverse-Wishart distribution.
So maybe tomorrow I'll go to the library and look some things up, but maybe someone here knows something off the top of their head. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Now added to the article. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 06:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Legacypac was wondering if this draft is "useful/fixable" (I have no idea). So, is it useful? already covered in mainspace? -- Taku ( talk) 00:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
(but not Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition)I do not know anyone who types en-dashes into search bars rather than hyphens. So I will create the other redirect. -- JBL ( talk) 17:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I've significantly expanded numerical linear algebra. Where can I request an assessment of it to revise its Stub Class label? - Astrophobe ( talk) 22:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
In our system of mathematical notation coding, which is not LaTeX although people call it that, and is not actually TeX either, I found this in Barnes G-function:
I changed it so that it says this:
You see the difference on the second line: in the first version, the space between the minus sign and the z is what is normally followed when the minus sign is used as a binary operation symbol, rather the smaller amount of space that normally appears when it's a unary operation, thus:
I tried the same code in genuine LaTeX and (as expected) this problem of incorrect spacing did not occur. The way I fixed the problem is that I changed this line of code:
to the following:
I found three instances of the same bug in the same section of that article and fixed them all the same way.
I don't recall that I've noticed this bug before. I'd hate to think that I'd encountered it without noticing, it, but such unpleasantenss can actually happen. How long has this been with us? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Our WP entry for the site describes it as inactive and apparently they moved their content last year to GitHub with the original website currently somewhere between dysfunctional and not maintained (and I suspect it being ditched in the future). Does anybody have any background on PlanethMath's exact status and planned future? We still have that collaboration project listed on our project page, but that seems to be inactive/dead for years now as well. Should we remove that? Do we still have an overlap of active editors or anybody doing work on the collaboration?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 02:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
{{planetmath reference|id=3485|title=Axiom of Foundation}}
{{PlanetMath|urlname=axiomoffoundation|title="Axiom of foundation"}}
.Based on the discussion so far I removed PlanetMath from the project page now. As for the PlanethMath-Links in articles it might be best as suggested above to handle them individually on an article basis. Links that for now still works (at least most of the time) may be kept for now and those that hsve become completely dysfunctional/unavailable can be removed or replaced by copies on archive.org.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 10:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects. We are designing a bot script to perform a few article assessment–related tasks and would appreciate your feedback.
Qzekrom (
talk) 08:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I've done approximately this same reversion three times, and I wonder if the user who added this stuff may persist. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Deletion of a new article titled Gadi Moran has been proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadi Moran. Opinions can be posted on the latter page. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Geometry of roots of real polynomials is not a new article it as been proposed for deletion for the second time at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometry of roots of real polynomials. Opinion of editors that are competent in mathematics would be useful there. D.Lazard ( talk) 20:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
If you would like to contribute to reaching a consensus on whether Infobox mathematical statement should be included in Fermat's Last Theorem, please see this talk. — MarkH21 ( talk) 05:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude ( talk) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
New portals have been added in the "see also" section of several of our articles such as in e (mathematical constant), algebra, circles. There are more than twenty such automatically created portals. Please, participate to the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals. Should we nominate for deletion all these portals that are related to mathematics? D.Lazard ( talk) 15:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Even the most advanced automated content creation is dangerous. [1] [2]User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ( talk) 18:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
References
There is a sparsity of mathematical infoboxes and I think that one for mathematical statements (broadly construed, e.g. theorems, conjectures, propositions, lemmas, etc.) could be very useful on many particularly important mathematical articles. I've drafted a very simple one. Would other editors here welcome such a infobox? Feedback on its usage as well as its implementation (e.g. possible additional fields) would be very welcome as this is my first attempt at an infobox template! MarkH21 ( talk) 06:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Contested
or just omit the field altogether until consensus is reached. A non-logic example would be the
abc conjecture. I'm not sure evidence for/against validity would be a viable infobox field though.I've thought about this some more, and I'd like to respond to the points brought up. The heart of the opposition seems to be that any infobox is a trivialization of the subject. However, the infobox neither detracts from the material of the articles for the knowledgeable nor expert reader, who may glance past the infobox just as one would for any biographical article. Meanwhile, the majority of articles on mathematical statements are too technical for the general reader (or even knowledgeable reader) to whom we should strive to make the articles more accessible. In particular, while basic details such as its history and its logical connections to other statements perhaps should be easily accessible in the lead (although I disagree for many cases), the fact of the matter is that they usually are not.
An implementation of the template, in great moderation and keeping the MOS purpose in mind, should add value to these articles – particularly for the general reader casually looking up math on Wikipedia. — MarkH21 ( talk) 10:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Bumping thread for 21 days. Referred to in a TfD listing –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 05:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a long-standing dispute flaring up again over a short, one-sentence-fragment draft at Draft:Bredon cohomology which needs input from editors familiar with mathematics topics. The crux of the issue is that the only editor interested in keeping the draft has not worked on it in five years, and nobody else who has interacted with this has the knowledge to edit topics of this complexity. If someone could help us work out what this draft is and where it should go, your efforts will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I just stumbled on this video by Numberphile talking about a thing he called "glitch prime". I was surprised to see we don't have an article on that (or at least a redirect to an equivalent concept. Basically they're numbers, when expressed in a base, are an odd number of digits where all the digits is the maximum number in the base, and the middle digit is one less (e.g. 11011 in binary, 22222122222 in ternary, 99899 in base ten and so on), which also happen to be primes. I could be explaining this wrong, but that was my takeaway.
Not really sure if that passes any sort of WP:N standards, of if it's a 'thing' in math, but I was surprised not to have an article on them. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, this is WP:OR, as the author of the video does not cite any source. So, this does not belong to WP. D.Lazard ( talk) 12:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This is precisely the case of "glitch primes". D.Lazard ( talk) 18:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable. In WP:SPS:
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. An anonymous blogger, such as nunberphile, cannot fit this definition of a self-published expert. So, the fact that this source is not reliable is the result of Wikipedia's definition of "reliable". It is not a belief nor an opinion. D.Lazard ( talk) 18:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. -- 173.79.47.7 ( talk) 23:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Robust geometric computation Legacypac ( talk) 03:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Proto-value Functions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I have added these two drafts to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages. -- Taku ( talk) 23:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I have moved Proto-value functions to Proto-value function. I left it as an orphaned article, i.e. no other articles link to it. I don't know which other topics should link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Please categorize Draft:M* search algorithm Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The list was Taku's excellent idea. If other wikiprojects did this more good drafts could be improved. Legacypac ( talk) 06:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
If the new article titled Entropy influence conjecture should be kept, then it needs work. In particular, it's not all that clearly stated, and no other articles link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
03:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
So I don't know what should be done with this draft. The article title seems too vague, which is of course fixable and the topic itself seems legitimate (but I don't have a background to review the article itself myself). -- Taku ( talk) 01:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem to have much content to me. Is this not just giving examples where all data points lie on a simplex? It also happens to be almost entirely contained in Aitchison geometry (which seems to just define some operations on the simplex and a few isomorphisms, although perhaps their significance in statistics is greater than I can tell).
Seems to me like at least one of the two articles should be merged into the other or to Simplex#Applications (which itself needs some work). See the talk page discussion at compositional data and talk page discussion at Aitchison geometry that I just started. — MarkH21 ( talk) 06:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It is also obvious that if two of these are merged, then Aitchison geometry would be merged into Compositional data and not into Simplex, since analysis of compositional data is the purpose of Aitchison's work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! I've done the merge now, made some other revisions to the writing, and added some links to the article / pointing at the article. — MarkH21 ( talk) 07:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
There's a dispute and discussion ongoing at Talk:Sieve of Eratosthenes over whether the lead of the article should mention sieve theory. Please participate with your opinions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for bringing up an old issue. Just posting a notice that an official RfC has been posted for the FLT infobox debate: Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem#Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement. Hopefully this can lead to the debate being effectively and peacefully closed in either direction. — MarkH21 ( talk) 07:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
peacefully", if no one gets stabbed as a result of this issue, I will be very disappointed ;). -- JBL ( talk) 16:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding
Karen Uhlenbeck's win of the Abel prize,
Coffeeandcrumbs wrote on
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red that "This article has the opportunity to appear at ITN today. Please help improve the article. We need to expand the Research section to explain why she won the Abel Prize. Please help!
". My feeling is that this project is more likely than WIR to include people who understand her research well enough to help, so I am copying the message here. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I am about to run off to work so can't deal with this properly, but attention is definitely needed with respect to the edits to mathematician infoboxes by this user: Debaditya2000 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There have been some reversions (e.g. by D.Lazard at Paul Erdos and by me at Andrey Markov and Alexander Grothendieck), but there are many more. Courtesy ping: @ Debaditya2000:. -- JBL ( talk) 13:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The question set by Debaditya2000 is about the style of the field "known for" in infoboxes of mathematicians. Debaditya2000 edits consist of providing a field containing only <show>, which allows display a long list that seems copied from articles titled "List of things named after ...". IMO, this breaks the purpose of infoboxes, which is to provide a synthetic view. For people with many important contributions, giving a short synthetic summary of them is very difficult, but a long indiscriminate list is certainly not the right solution. This needs a discussion here. Until reaching a consensus here, Debaditya2000 must not pushing his personal ideas by editing again infoboxes. D.Lazard ( talk) 10:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree,
D.Lazard with providing a "synthetic view" which seems rather "insincere"/"superfluous" for view in infoboxes, rather to provide an informative yet, summarized view and I repeat for the 3rd time "intuitively understandable for the reader" type of a view. Just like in these articles:
Richard Feynman,
John von Neumann or
Paul Dirac, which have used the same formats that I tried to present in my editing. Which seem again to have copied from
List of things named after Richard Feynman,
List of things named after John von Neumann and
List of things named after Paul Dirac. And all these articles are rated. Hence, it doesn't matter whether it is copied or not, it matters whether the information provided thus forth is correct or incorrect. So, rather than to continue this long and unproductive discussion, I think my allowance should be granted ASAP. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Debaditya2000 (
talk •
contribs)
This picture is plainly wrong, and is used in the article titled Voronoi pole. Is this simply a result of using the wrong aspect ratio? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed that there are the stubs Genus-two surface and Genus-three surface which would probably be better suited as redirects to the section n-dimensional torus of Torus. The articles don't say much and have few links pointing towards them. Respective proposals: genus two and genus three. — MarkH21 ( talk) 19:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
Main article}}
pointer from the "Genus g surface" section of the
Torus page. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 20:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Areas of mathematics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Areas of mathematics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 12:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Folks here might be interested in WT:WPP#Postmodern mathematics about some concerns I had on this article. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 14:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Everyone remember this fun from last year (continued here)? This time it started on Claude Shannon ( talk page discussion for masochists) and seems to have progressed to ridiculousness -- note the inclusion on Paul Erdős again (which I have reverted). Some assistance dealing with this would be welcome. -- JBL ( talk) 23:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I found this in an article:
It is coded as follows:
Obviously this was intended to look like this:
Often one avoids inline "TeX" because of bizarre mismatches in font size and alignment. Nowadays we have the following sort of thing:
Just how well that works is a matter on which I am not ready to opine, although some instances look good to me. So one could reasonably replace what I found, maybe. But still it would seem a good idea to fix the "overline" text-decoration feature, if possible. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)The AfD on Rick Norwood (a mathematician and comics publisher) has drawn attention from editors who personally know him due to a Facebook post by the subject Rick Norwood ( talk · contribs) (courtesy ping). Any reviews from independent editors would be greatly appreciated. — MarkH21 ( talk) 00:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying to fix a poorly written sentence in the topology article. It includes multiple uses of "we". But another editor is reverting my improvement. Also, the key terms in the section containing the sentence should be wikilinked (which I did, but the other user reverted). Could someone please take a look at the article? Jrheller1 ( talk) 00:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
What exactly is incorrect about this version of the sentence?I personally wouldn't say that it's incorrect, just that it's not at all clear what the meaning of that string of words is supposed to be. What does "the definition of an open set" mean? What is "the nature of" continuous functions, etc., and how is it "determined"? (Honestly though I'm not sure such a sentence is needed there at all.) -- JBL ( talk) 23:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Multiple people have complained about "nature of", so maybe "The definition of an open set completely determines the continuous functions, the compact sets, and the connected sets" would be better. I don't understand what is unclear about "definition" and "determines". But as JBL stated, the sentence might not even be necessary. Jrheller1 ( talk) 04:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
So I changed two sentences to:
The definition of an open set completely determines the continuous functions, the compact sets, and the connected sets. A choice of open subsets is called a topology.
Another user changed it back to this version:
If the collection of subsets that are designated as open is changed, then this affects which functions are continuous, as well as which sets are compact and which sets are connected. A choice of subsets to be called open is a topology.
Which of these two versions is better? Jrheller1 ( talk) 15:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Which of these approx 30 Portals does the math project provide support to or are you interested in managing? From Category:Mathematics_portals.
Legacypac ( talk) 22:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion at Talk:Tian Gang, with a disagreement about whether we should treat all mathematicians the same or all Chinese people the same in terms of their names. More input would be welcome. — Kusma ( t· c) 07:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I have collected another batch of math(s)-related articles which contain links to DAB pages, where expert attention would be welcome. Search for 'disam' in read mode, or for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve one of these puzzles, post {{ done}} here.
Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 01:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Percentages Legacypac ( talk) 06:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
A few years ago some software packages appeared on the web somewhere that generates TeX code for those who don't know how to do that by hand. I don't know what any of them are called, nor where or how they are found. But at first some of them generated code that looked as if it was written by someone with a major psychosis. That problem may have subsided. But we find things like this:
I just fixed a whole bunch of things like that in the article titled Topological geometry.
Apparently one of these packages encloses binary operation symbols and binary relation symbols within {curly braces}, writing
instead of
and that affects what the reader sees, as follows:
(There are compelling reasons why TeX was designed to work that way, and I have found that some people don't know about those reasons.)
I suspect somebody sees that and "corrects" it by manually adding spaces, changing
At any rate, multiple instances of the latter usage were in the Topological geometry article until I fixed them a moment ago.
Is there something that can be done to prevent this problem? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
insource:
magic word to search in the articles' definition instead of their rendered version) :See my remarks at Talk:Sims conjecture. Maybe someone here knows how to clean this up. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Every item in the List of unsolved problems in mathematics now has a bluelink, a reference or both. There's still an "other" section whose items could stand a proper classifying, if anyone feels like tackling that. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
As some of you may know, a couple months back, Commons added the feature of uploading .stl 3D models. When opened, these files can be interacted with: zoom in, pan around, etc (see the 3D model on the right). I think they would be a great addition to articles about shapes and solids, such as Cube and Mobius strip. I've already replaced some of the lead images with 3D versions, and I hope to add more.
There are some issues to note though: The 3D models aren't interactive on mobile, and smooth surfaces aren't well replicated (Wikipedia's 3D file viewer doesn't smooth things). – XYZt ( talk | contribs) – 05:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Any use? If not just ignore it and it will go away. Thanks. Legacypac ( talk) 06:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Dimension of a scheme was just created. While I can check for structure, sourcing and copyvio stuff, would appreciate someone with more knowledge on the subject to take a look and make sure it's notable, and well, correct. Onel5969 TT me 14:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Seeing a recent note about "well-intended vandals" I recall an anecdotal case from my childhood. Our guest asked me a geometric problem; I solved it and wrote for him a solution. He read loudly: "...where triangle's area is triangle's area" and asked me menacingly: what's this? I asked: where? He showed me a line: "...where is triangle's area". After a moment of confusion, I realized that for him "" means "triangle's area" and is read "triangle's area" by an eternal global indestructible convention. And, looking at him, I realized that he would aggressively defend this position. Being just a teenager (not a professor yet) I preferred to escape.
Back to Wiki. I think many (non-mathematicians) believe that all mathematical notations are an eternal global indestructible convention. Seeing a formula slightly different from their textbook they just "fix the error". I see no way to solve this problem. Do you?
By the way, I guess, many think (likewise) that words of different languages are related by the canonical bijective correspondence. But this is not our problem. :-) Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 05:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Xiuxiong Chen. Thanks! Dennui ( talk) 04:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello! In a book by Ivan Niven there is a proof which is probably the best proof of the product rule for beginners. It's not presented there. I would like to show it on the page, but English is not my native language, and I don't know how to paraphrase it very well. Would anyone be interested in adding it to the article? (for the benefit of the freshmen!). Dennui ( talk) 19:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Another think... In a book by Vladimir Arnold he shows a geometric interpretation of the product rule (with a rectangle... you know that image?...), which makes it "obvious". Dennui ( talk) 19:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Which is the best proof for beginners made depend on which kind of beginner it is. I like this one: side of a rectangle moves while remaining parallel to where it was, thus causing the sides that it meets to grow or shrink. Now let two sides move. And then: The length of the side times the rate at which it moves equals the rate at which the area grows, but it's two sides. The lengths are ƒ; and g; the rate of growth of the side of length ƒ is g′ and the rate of growth of the side of length g is ƒ′. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The length of the side times the rate at which it moves equals the rate at which the area growsshould be "The length of the side times the rate at which it moves in the direction away from the other side and perpendicular to itself equals the rate at which the area grows." — MarkH21 ( talk) 19:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Michael Hardy: That's essentially Arnol'd argument! Dennui ( talk) 16:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
By the way, Niven's is more algebraic and is better than the ones presented. A guy named Howard Levi presents an algebraic one in his unusual calculus textbook. Dennui ( talk) 16:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I have created a new article titled Markov chain central limit theorem. It could use more work. In particular
Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I swapped the link in the {{ mathgenealogy}} template (widely used in our biographies of mathematicians) from NDSU to AMS; please discuss this change at Template talk:MathGenealogy. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the overlap and naming of the articles: algebraic curve, plane curve, curve, and differential geometry of curves (especially the first two). Much of the discussion is about the focus on plane curves in algebraic curve and curve. Some restructuring needs to be done because of the overlaps and redirects. — MarkH21 ( talk) 05:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Here is an AfD that could use additional attention from those with expertise in mathematics and set theory. Eozhik ( talk) 14:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm pondering a rewrite of Discrete logarithm based on eight reliable sources that I've assembled at Talk:Discrete logarithm#Reliable sources. The rewrite raises some questions for me about what constitutes original research and plagiarism in math articles. Here are a few:
I'm raising the issue here, because similar questions apply to many math articles, and I can't find specific policy. Mgnbar ( talk) 14:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
We are told to "Be bold" in editing. Not knowing algebraic geometry, I created a page called Kodaira map, redirecting it to Kodaira–Spencer map. If it needs further work, probably someone here knows what should be done. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Another new article. Could use the eyes of you good folks here at this project. Thanks for taking the time. Onel5969 TT me 01:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Versor (physics) has been proposed for deletion since April 18, and will probably be deleted (if nothing changes) today or tomorrow. Anyone want to save it? — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
survived AfD in 2016. I can't find this AfD. Rather than going through the whole rigmarole in order to delete an article that we don't need but which won't go away, I'm going to make it a redirect into unit vector. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi! String theory is within this project's scope, so I was hoping somebody would have a look at the above edit request and implement/deny it as required. I understand pretty much nothing the abstract for the source is saying. Thanks in advance, Nici Vampire Heart 22:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Folks, please check out my recent edits on the Iterated_function and Tetration pages as well as my comments at Talk:Tetration#Moving_towards_a_verifiable_article. Both pages suffer from liberal edits including non-attributable and nonverifiable mathematical content that have never been peer reviewed or published. I have five-year-old comments asking for people to fix their entries that have never been responded to. The content of the pages is ruled by politics, not Wikipedia policy. I would like to hear of better options than what I have offered. Thanks.
Daniel Geisler ( talk) 19:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Please disregard. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for me to benefit people.
Daniel Geisler ( talk) 08:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
This article is linked to in Curve (mathematics). I came to it because its title does not indicate what is the subject. The first sentence is "A two-dimensional graph is a set of points in two-dimensional space". For me, a set of points in two-dimensional space is called a plane figure. The content and the figures suggest that it what is intended by this title. The article does not contain any reference, and is tagged as such. What should be done with this article? My opinion is that it should be either deleted or redirected to graph of a function. But other advices would be useful. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I have prodded the article. D.Lazard ( talk) 08:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Goro Shimura just passed away yesterday, so I have updated the article and made an RD nomination at ITN/Candidates. Comments and article improvements would be most welcome! — MarkH21 ( talk) 10:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
(Note there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometry of an algebraic curve.) I have split-off some of content to separate articles ( Severi variety (Hilbert scheme) and Hurwitz scheme) and merged the rest into Draft:Complete algebraic curve and its talkpage. This should solve the issue that the page looks too unfocused and for me, this seems like the most constructive steps instead of arguing about the page. I just sincerely hope we focus on the discussion and development of the content (not the history or the procedure). —- Taku ( talk) 13:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
In Nowhere-zero flow we find this code:
With a certain window geometry, one sees this:
To say the least, the line-break is in a very very bad place. But " " is supposed to prevent that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi.
Wrote a wall of text on
talk:Spin group #Incorrect use of “⊗” while their notation is clearly wrong.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 18:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Smarandache came up at Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit2021/December#Request for comment (which came to my attention here), so it may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey, WikiProject Math,
I was reading an article and came across a mathematical symbol that looks like a fork or trident, placed on its side like an "E". Can anyone tell me what this is? I wasn't even sure where to look for an explanation and the article didn't explain what it meant. Thanks, anyone. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Curve#What is a curve? for a discussion that concerns several articles.
See also Talk:Plane curve#Merge with algebraic curve? and Talk:Curve#Sections on differentiable curves for recent related discussions]]. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Members of this project may be able to assist at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 9#Interior solution. Certes ( talk) 21:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
A few months ago, I had a brief exchange
here with
Reddwarf2956 about
this addition to the article
Prime gap, about something Reddwarf2956 calls the
Ramanujan prime corollary. In addition to not understanding how their response answers my question (and so not being clear on the mathematical validity), I am worried about original research and self-promotion: the attribution at
Ramanujan prime says The Ramanujan Prime Corollary is due to John Nicholson
(uncited), and Reddwarf2956 signs their talkpage posts as "John W. Nicholson". I would be grateful if another editor could take a look to determine whether this content (at both
Prime gap and
Ramanujan prime) is meaningful, and whether it belongs in Wikipedia. (I have not tried to assess whether similar remarks have been added elsewhere.) --
JBL (
talk) 12:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The article Voronoi pole is in dire need of attention from an expert, preferably in computational geometry. -- Lambiam 22:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Possibly this anonymous editor is trying to say something, but obviously what was added is unsuitable for anything to be kept in its present form. Can someone who knows what Euler did with nested radicals decipher it and possibly clean it up? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Huh, interesting. In fact, if a+sqrt(b)=4k^2 then x=y=k^2 will do. 31, 25,9,9 for instance. Or I wonder if there are counterexamples with irrational left and right hand sides. Reyk YO! 15:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@ D.Lazard: I believe the proof is incorrect. We have that is a solution to , but . Perhaps we could use an elementary proof: Assuming is not square, then implies that and , so . Pbroks13 ( talk) 15:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The redirect Absolute number, which currently targets Absolute value, has been nominated for deletion at RFD. You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 19#Absolute number. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Number theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Number theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 21:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I was looking at a draft article with the {{ Maths banner}} on it. I clicked on the Drafts link and was sent to Category:Draft-Class mathematics articles, which to my surprise was empty. I dug around and found the article at Category:Draft-Class mathematics pages. Is there a way that the banner can be changed? The "articles" category appears to be the standard page (for {{ category class}} as well) but for some reason it gets sent to the "pages" category.-- Auric talk 16:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
|ASSESSMENT_CAT = mathematics pages
to |ASSESSMENT_CAT = mathematics articles
in {{
Maths banner}} but I'm not sure what else that might affect. The only other page that would obviously need editing is
WP:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages.
Certes (
talk) 16:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I am suspicious of this edit. I cleaned up the formatting and added a "citation needed" tag. The editor is User:Lewisbrito; the alleged fact added is attributed to "Hamilton Brito", and Google finds this page belonging to "Hamilton Brito (Lewis)". Is this "OR"? And is the mathematics correct? (I haven't yet even reached the point of looking closely at what it says yet.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
There is currently an edit request from an editor with a conflict of interest pending in the Gray code article which requires a math background, in particular, a knowledge of the reflected binary code used in that numeral system. Any editors who might be able to review this request would be most appreciated. Spintendo 01:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
A new article on mathematician Nail H. Ibragimov has been nominated for deletion. Feel free to weigh in with your opinions at the AfD, but I have a different request. In the current version of the article, at the bottom in the "Further reading" section, there is a link to a three-page biography of Ibragimov, in Russian, published for his 70th birthday. I think it would be useful in expanding the text of our article, but I don't read Russian and (as an image of a printed document rather than web text) it's inconvenient to run through an automatic translator. Would someone who does read Russian like to give it a try? — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Geometry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Geometry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 23:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Should the article covering lemma and core model be merged? Neither has enough context that I can be sure I understand them, and both seem to make little sense without the other. I am a set theory expert, but am not good with large cardinals.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Anyone interested in an international math community group https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Math ? -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Several years ago there was a lengthy argument between myself (under my old username "SharkD") and another user ( User:Ag2gaeh) over the usage of terminology related to 3D projection and descriptive geometry, especially the terms " Axonometry" and " Axonometric projection". However there seems to be a difference in English sources versus European sources. For instance, I did two brief surveys of English language sources ( #1, #2), but the European literature seems to differ in many ways. I was wondering if someone could take a look into the topic. There also seems to be a language issue, in that the original author of Axonometry is not fluent in English, so I'm not clear exactly on how the literature differs, except that "axonometry" in Europe seems to include all types of parallel projection, not just a few types as is common (but not universal) in English sources. In general I am wondering if we should switch over to the European terminology. ➧ datumizer ☎ 09:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Datumizer: A minor note about 'steps' order dependency' in Axonometry#Principle of axonometry: the clause refers to three bulleted sub-steps inside the step 3, not to steps 1 through 4 – started from zero-zero you can go by x in the X direction, then by y in the Y direction or the other way, and you'll get to the same (x, y) point. Similarly you can make the Z step before, between or after X & Y steps and finally get to the same (x, y, z). -- CiaPan ( talk) 10:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
In German textbooks
In English textbooks an axonometric projection seems to be always an orthographic (orthogonal)) projection.
Addendum: An essential practical improvement of the procedure Axonometrie is the "Einschneideverfahren" (or "Schnellriss"), which is due to the Austrian mathematican Ludwig Eckhart. It omits determining single coordinates and their foreshortenings and facilitates marking image points.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 14:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPM. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Captions#Formulas in captions that may be of interest to folks here. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 01:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I found this in the article titled Random variable:
It was coded like this:
I changed the code to this:
But ideally, one would like to see this:
This works in LaTeX, but it doesn't work here, in this software that people sometimes incorrectly call "LaTeX":
That same code, in genuine LaTeX, would yield something about like this:
But here we have to code that as follows:
I don't like doing that in lots of Wikipedia articles because some day this bug may be fixed and in fact people do learn how to code these things by looking at code that they find here.
I think this has been reported (I seem to recall having reported it a couple of years ago), and that means some time before the 29th century developers may get to it, or may not. Can anything be done to get this attended to besides hoping that developers who don't understand the need understand the need? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
\operatorname{\underset \omega {ess\ sup}} |X(\omega)-Y(\omega)|
The redirect ≘ (U+2258 CORRESPONDS TO) which currently targets Binary relation has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 18#≘, your comments in that discussion would be appreciated. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Please can someone review the few remaining links to dab Mathematical formalism and divert them to relevant articles or unlink? Thanks, Certes ( talk) 15:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! We have a similar problem with Correspondence (mathematics), which discusses specific types of correspondence and has now been tagged as a dab. Certes ( talk) 15:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a new page titled Gap-Hamming problem. On the theory that "gap" is being used here as a common noun, I set the initial in lower case. If it's actually someone's name, then the article should say who that is and the hyphen in "gap-Hamming" should become an en-dash. I found no links to this article at all and added one to the "See also" section of Hamming distance.
So further work is needed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Our article on Zero divisors may have some WP:NPOV problems, taking Bourbaki's choice to include 0 as a zero divisor as the "right" one, and being dismissive of those references that exclude it. In fact, in the four textbooks I checked (Gallian, Fraleigh, Rotman, and Dummit & Foote), every one of them excluded 0 in their definitions of zero divisors. I'm not sure of the best way to proceed, so I'll just leave this here, and anyone interested can take a whack at it. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 17:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProofWiki got relisted and now deleted seemingly without any/much input from the math community. I just post that here in case anybody thinks it might be worth to revisit that deletion. Peronally I would have preferred to keep the article, although it could be hard to convince non-mathematics editors on the base of Wikipedia:GNG.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I recently created an article: Hasse–Schmidt derivation. Boleyn insists that the article, which in my opinion has completely acceptable references, needs more footnotes. Any opinions on such a situation? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 20:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
In LaTeX, one finds \wedge and \bigwedge. The latter looks different in a "displayed" context from the way it appears in an "inline" context, not only in that it is somewhat smaller, but also in that any subscripts and superscripts appear to the right rather than directly above and below the symbol. Thus three forms, here exemplified:
In full generality, let denote the kth exterior power of the dual map to the differential.
Following Dieudonne, there is a unique
which may be thought of as the fibral part of ωx with respect to ηy.
This afternoon I did a fairly large number of edits to
Differential form, where I found quite a large number of occurrences of \wedge where \bigwedge should appear.
Is it possible that
ok, So clearly such things are possible, but would one expect to encounter such things as frequently as one does here? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
" Streamline upwind Petrov–Galerkin pressure-stabilizing Petrov–Galerkin formulation for incompressible Navier–Stokes equations" may be the most unusual article title I've seen. No other articles link to it. Probably if it ought to exist, it needs attention. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
A source would be ideal, but I think Staszek Lem ( talk · contribs) is in the wrong here. More comments would be appreciated.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The redirect Η-pseudolinearity, which currently targets Pseudoconvex function (where pseudolinearity also redirects) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 10#Η-pseudolinearity. The discussion needs attention from editors with relevant subject knowledge. Please leave your comments there. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Category:Articles unintentionally citing publications with errata has 3 articles with erratas that need to be double-checked to make sure the material cited still matches what the paper concludes. They're all the same publication article, I believe. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Two grammatical numbers:
The word "errata" is plural. I've never seen "erratas" before. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Should False position method be moved to Method of false position (the latter currently redirects to the former)? See Talk:False position method#Name of article. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
An attention should be paid to some of drafts created (and deleted) at this meetup. -— Taku ( talk) 05:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Looing at articles in Category:Mathematical constants, many (like Apéry's constant) have ad hoc pseudo infoboxes. I think someone should create a Template:Infobox mathematical constant to standardize use (like {{ Infobox mathematical statement}} and {{ Infobox mathematics function}} ). – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Does anybody know an authoritative style guide? A user claims that there should be a “blank” between the function symbol and left parenthesis in f(x)—specifically, the user pushed for U+0020—although I suspect a mild trolling. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 13:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I like to have a blank between the "ln" and the "(2)", but I would not have reverted you if that was the only change you made, which is expressing a personal preference in an obviously good-faith way, and which you seem to have intentionally misrepresented. If anyone is trolling here, it is you. -- JBL ( talk) 14:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's what's standard and what's not:
If you write \ln 2 or \ln2 you get a space between ln and 2 that's the same in both cases, and if you write \ln(2) then the space to the right of ln is smaller. The third example among the four above is coded as \text{ln}2, and that does not have context-dependent spacing. The fourth example is coded as ln\,(2). The same thing happens with \exp and \sin and other things. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Jarble is adding a lot of URLs to our references ("adding links to references using Google Scholar"); and these URLs point to Google Book "digests" of occurrences of the given notion in the given book (rather than the whole book). Is it a good idea? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
This journal is indexed in Scopus and zbMATH, which will be enough to pass WP:NJOURNALS usually. If someone would like to shepherd this to mainspace, see WP:JWG for how to expand the article up to our standards. The indexing information can be found at [9]. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I recently created Codensity monad which was quickly tagged by Domdeparis with some curation tags including "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. The specific problem is: Verification of the sources and the content.". While I am not an expert in category theory, I would consider myself sufficiently qualified to simply remove the tag (because nothing, in my mind, is problematic about the verification here), but if someone else around would have a look, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 20:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Inline citations are added using either footnotes (long or short) or parenthetical references.. Your references are not inline though but are General references. Inline citations are preferable to these as stated in WP:CITETYPE
A general reference is a citation that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section. They are usually found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. They may also be listed in more developed articles as a supplement to inline citations.. I should have said that there are no inline citations in this article and they should be added.Hope this clears up the misunderstanding. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 22:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Here (I only noticed because I was pinged). XOR'easter ( talk) 14:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Someone might want to rescue Draft:Artin-Tits groups from languishing in draft state. It looks well-sourced and reasonably close to publishable to me (although the title should be Artin–Tits group with an en-dash and no plural, and it needs more wikilinks), but a request to publish it was declined by Theroadislong for the bogus reason of being "largely incomprehensible" (it is a technical subject that would not reasonably be expected to be comprehensible to non-mathematicians). — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I moved it from Artin-Tits groups to Artin–Tits groups and then from there to Artin–Tits group. I am uncertain whether that last move is right.
So far no other articles link to this new article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I am (enthusiastically) willing to work on merging "Artin groups" and "Artin-Tits groups", which by coincidence have been created almost simultaneously. I just need a few days, and I'll post a proposal. OK ? I am a specialist of this area of mathematics, and should be able to make something coherent. Patrick Dehornoy 15:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
PS. I enterely agree with the critics about the first draft of "Artin-Tits groups", of which I am the author. I am not yet very familiar with the editorial features of Wikipedia, but I should learn fast... Patrick Dehornoy 15:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I now posted a tentative version of the new, completed page merging "Artin group" and "Artin-Tits group". Please check and criticize. Patrick Dehornoy 19:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Recursive definition#(Aczel 1978:740ff). -- CiaPan ( talk) 16:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Any opinions of this edit? I wonder if there's a third way of phrasing the thing that's better. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The original creator of the article titled Artin–Tits group has told me that he merged it into Artin group. After that I moved it to Artin–Tits group. So two questions arise:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there the right place to answer these questions? (I am an old mathematician, but a newcomer on Wikipedia...).
About the title, there is no obvious answer. Artin-Tits groups are a vast subject, and many people work on them. More importantly, there are several classes of such groups, and several specialized subcommunities. "Artin-Tits groups" is more common in recent references. But an important subcommity, those working on "Right Angled Artin-Tits groups" ("RAAGs") uniformly use "right-angled Artin groups", and not "right-angled Artin-Tits groups". Ideally, the two names should be possible. What is the better solution for this situation?
About the content, your comment "The article mostly consists of a list of properties and results that does not seem entirely appropriate here too" is very interesting. This is precisely what I aimed at doing: it seems to me that the paper, as it stands, would be all I expect to learn about these groups if I were a newcomer in the subject, namely the state-of-the-art results which are considered important (top journals references). But you are a hugely qualified Wiki author, and I would like to know your opinion: what would be typically missing, or useless? As I intend to invest myself in writing on several subject of my expertise area, I am much willing to understand what is the exact aim and philosophy of Wiki (as far as mathematical subjects are concerned). Thank you very much for any comment....
A minor point: your talk page is wonderfully structured, with a summarized "abstract" presenting you. How could I do the same for me? Patrick Dehornoy 17:30, 8 August 2019 (GMT)
Insists that knows the only correct notation and the rest of the world the preceding version is “wrong”. Look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Quaternion&action=history&offset=2019081216&limit=9 and
talk:Quaternion #Exponential, logarithm, and power functions, please.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 15:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Please look at these edits: Special:Contributions/Hanumantw; not vandalism, but... something strange? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 16:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
See recent history of factorial. An editor there insists that the constant function f(x)=1 is an example of a double exponential function and on using that example to change the statement that the factorial grows "slower than double exponential functions" to the overly-pedantic "slower than many double exponential functions e.g. (example)". I don't think this is an improvement, but additional opinions might be more helpful than my repeated reversion of these edits. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I was editing Talk:Axiom of union#Independence of the axiom of union. I had planned out what I wanted to say in my head and was rushing to get it committed to writing before I forgot it. As usual, there were times when I needed to look at another article to get the correct spelling or latex symbol. This time, I went to the Axiom of powerset to get the symbol for the powerset. I had to enter the editor to see the source of that article to get "\mathcal (P)". When I tried to back out of that edit and return to my original edit, it would not allow me to do so. Ultimately, I had to "resend" to escape and as a result I lost most of what I had already written. I cannot say in words just how discouraging this is. For several minutes I sat stunned, enervated, unable to do anything. Eventually, I forced myself to re-enter an approximation to what I had written before.
This is not the first time this has happened. It has happened several times before. But it is infrequent enough that I forget to take precautions against it. Is there some way to get this bug fixed? JRSpriggs ( talk) 01:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
This WPM talk page is on my watchlist, in the sense that I do see the corresponding blue star between "View history" and "More". And nevertheless it does not appear on my watchlist. This is a new phenomenon (the last week or two). Mostly, my watchlist looks as before; but some items are missing, I do not know why. If I click the blue star ("remove this page from your watchlist") and then click the (no more blue) start again (making it blue again), it helps; the page returns to my watchlist. But afterward it disappears again. Why so? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 06:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe not quite so. I just tried to click twice the star on Talk:Normal distribution (edited by me yesterday, and by a bot today); it did not help. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 06:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The empty square root generated as <math>\sqrt{\;}</math> is very badly aligned (I have found this in nth root). The reason seems that the alignment is done on the center of the argument and that the space character is viewed as a zero-height character placed at the bottom of the line. For having a normal alignment such as I have used <math>\sqrt{{~^~}^~\!\!}</math>. Do someone know a less weird method for a similar result? D.Lazard ( talk) 07:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
08:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Please see Talk:Convex_hull_algorithms#Lower_bound_on_computational_complexity -- GunterS ( talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
It is a pity that cocycle of a group action is not treated; neither in " Cocycle", nor in " Group action (mathematics)". See Talk:Cocycle#Cocycle of a group action. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 08:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Are Pollard's rho algorithm for logarithms and Pollard's kangaroo algorithm about the same thing? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Is this a topic that deserves a separate article? Genus (mathematics)#Graph theory already covers the topic but a quick Google search shows the topic is of independent interest. (I admit I’m not a specialist on this area so the others might know better.) — Taku ( talk) 22:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Serendipity element and Lagrange element are not created. -- Sharouser ( talk) 14:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Yet another occasion arises whose understanding requires one to realize that the "LaTeX" we use here is (many would say "obviously") not actual LaTeX.
If the "LaTeX" code uses a hyphen, then the first form above is seen, with a minus sign rather than a hyphen.
The second form is with a minus sign enclosed in {curly braces} so the spacing appropriate when it is used as a binary operation symbol does not appear.
The third has this: \varepsilon\text{-}\delta. This causes an honest hyphen to appear.
The fourth has this: \varepsilon\text{--}\delta.
In our not-really-LaTeX system, this makes two hyphens appear. In genuine LaTeX, it would make an en-dash appear. In the non-TeX occurrences of this phrase in the article titled (ε, δ)-definition of limit, an en-dash is used.
Use of an actual en-dash in the not-really-LaTeX code results only in an error message.
Should we eschew our not-really-LaTeX software altogether for these occasions, or should we use one of the options above, or should we compromise and write
or should we do something else? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
<math>\varepsilon\text{–}\delta</math>
↦ .
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 18:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
$\varepsilon$--$\delta$is probably what I'd do in an actual LaTeX document, too. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The article titled Nonlocal operator begins like this:
In mathematics, a nonlocal operator is a mapping which maps functions on a topological space to functions, in such a way that the value of the output function at a given point cannot be determined solely from the values of the input function in any neighbourhood of any point. An example of a nonlocal operator is the Fourier transform.
Occasionally I think English-speaking mathematicians are not attentive enough to nuances of the use of the word any.
is not quite the same as
since in some contexts this might mean every number at the same time. But
means
Maybe this point is clearer if one thinks of the difference between
and
Now suppose you say
That is in danger of being read as
and hence as
so that a universal quantifier in the writer's mind becomes an existential quantifier in the reader's mind. Merely writing "every" instead of "any" at the outset is all it takes to obviate this hazard.
Thus "any" can be universal in some contexts ("Anyone can do that.") and existential in others ("There isn't any." or "If anyone can run a 50 meters in three seconds, it's Usain Bolt.") The contexts in which it becomes existential seem to be these:
How shall we apply this to the two occurrences of the word any in the passage quoted from Nonlocal operator? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem arose from WP:Articles for deletion/Square root of 10. What to do with the topic now, in light of the deletionist assault? Is a separate article warranted? If no separate, then my proposal, square root #Principal square roots of the positive integers, or something else? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 14:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
What occasion could there be to write "square root of integers" rather than "square roots of integers" or "square root of an integer"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Just a reminder about m:Wikimedia Community User Group Math, which any person who supports the group's goals is welcome to join. As of a few weeks ago, the group is one of the officially recognized m:affiliates of the Wikimedia Foundation. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 00:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a problem with the disambiguation required for Michael Roberts (mathematician) in the previous thread: the link to a dab page is clearly intended to refer to covariants of invariant theory. The problem is that I have not found any mention of such a covariant in English Wikepedia. Do someone has an idea for solving the problem?
Here is what I remember on this subject: Let be a generic form in n variables (that is, its coefficients are indeterminates). The group GL(n) acts on the form by linear changes of variables. The discriminant of a form in two variables is an invariant. An invariant of GL(n) (or of a subgroup) is a polynomial in the coefficients of the form. A covariant is a form in the same variables, with coefficients polynomials in the coefficient of the given form, which is similarly invariant. For example, an invariant is a covariant of degree 0.
What precedes is clearly not sufficient, even for a stub. Again, any idea? D.Lazard ( talk) 18:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been editing trigonometry to address some of the problems it had in its GA review. In particular, much of it was unsourced or OR. I've been going through and deleting unsourced assertions and adding sources to everything else.
There was a section marked with 'more sources needed'. This sections was the 'applications' section, which has largely been unchanged since at least 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Trigonometry&oldid=122379664
I was going through and sourcing each 'application' one at a time, when I found a book that had all of them:
This is a Springer book where the authors have just copied and pasted the Wikipedia section, rearranging a few items.
I'm not too concerned that the authors have plagiarized this. My real question, though, is, would it be appropriate to use this book as a source for the whole list (as I've done for now), or would it be better to find sources that aren't plagiarized from Wikipedia itself?
Brirush ( talk) 19:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I have collected another batch of articles containing math(s)-related links to DAB pages which would benefit from expert attention. Search for 'disam' in read mode, and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve one of these puzzles, post {{ done}} here.
Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 02:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
07:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I've been reworking Trigonometry, focusing on organization and on removing OR and adding sources.
The page still looks skimpy, however, and I feel that more could be added (maybe separate sections on the properties of the graphs, on inverse functions, and perhaps fourier series/analysis?). I've been looking at other pages for inspiration, but I found to my surprise that no 'branch of mathematics' is currently a GA or a FA. Algebra, calculus, etc. are all below GA quality, and have some of the same problems that trigonometry has.
So I wanted to get some consensus before acting. What should 'big topic' articles like this cover? Is there any thing that you feel is necessary or standard for such articles? Is there any particularly good article in a related field that could be used as a template or inspiration? Brirush ( talk) 02:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
03:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)I've now completed my revision of Trigonometry. In the process, I've added several figures and tables, and almost doubled the size of the entry. I've tried to be careful and check for errors, but I would appreciate it if someone would look it over for mistakes, especially stray sentences from copy-and-paste or errors in the tables. If you feel any additions or removals are inappropriate, I can revert them. Thanks for the advice given above, it was extremely helpful.
Edit: The article itself isn't complete. As mentioned by someone else, it could use an overview of spherical/hyperbolic geometry. I'm not too familiar with spherical trigonometry, so I didn't attempt it.
Brirush ( talk) 19:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The page numbers in a lot of the references in trigonometry are given as the first half of a range. Surely this doesn't mean that the entire rest of the book after that page number is the relevant part. Would ff. work better? XOR'easter ( talk) 18:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Chongkian: See Category talk:Ordinal numbers. Chongkian ( talk · contribs) removed the {{Maths banner}}. Apparently, he believes that {{WikiProject Numbers}} is sufficient. Is that appropriate?
I think that ordinals are relevant to Mathematics generally, not merely to the Numbers project. JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
77 is the shirt number of Joe Minor-Leaguer), improving navigation templates and promoting their existence. Three years ago, 1 was the title of the article about the year AD 1. Certes ( talk) 11:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi! The second sentence in this article in its current form seems to be somewhat mangled for me.
Maybe this rewriting could be adequate:
As I am not a professional, I would like to have an expert opinion before editing the article. Thank you in advance! -- 94.21.201.110 ( talk) 11:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Just why the initial letter in "hyperbolic" should be capital while that in "elliptic" is in lower case is unclear. Or to put it more bluntly, it shouldn't be. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to delete all portals. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion on the suggestion of splitting Cubic function into Cubic function and Cubic equation. Feedback is welcome. D.Lazard ( talk) 10:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
This discussion calls for experts, right? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 18:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
There are currently redirects from Minkowski curve, Minkowski island, Minkowski sausage, and Minkowski fractal which lead to the article " Fractal antenna". An image given as an example of a fractal antenna design is labelled as a "Minkowski Island". Currently the term is in bold because the redirects indicate that it is a topic. However, an article about a subspecies of doves should probably redirect to an article about doves and not to an article about bird-shaped objects. It would be beneficial if an appropriate article was created to explain the Minkowski fractal, or if the redirects led to an article which explained the Minkowski fractal. The image is titled File:6452553 Vicsek Fractal Antenna.png, which implies that "Minkowski island" is an alternate name for the Vicsek fractal. " Vicsek fractal" does mention that the boundary is a variant of the Koch snowflake, and the "Koch snowflake" article contains a quadratic variant of the Koch curve labelled as the 'Minkowski Sausage', so one or both of the articles "Vicsek fractal" and "Koch snowflake" should probably contain the explanation. Hyacinth ( talk) 04:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
See: Minkowski Sausage. Hyacinth ( talk) 21:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the Mathematics page doesn't appear on /info/en/?search=Category:Active_WikiProjects, which seems wrong. I'd fix it myself if I knew what I was doing, but I haven't edited a Wiki article before. Iyyl ( talk) 01:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been working on geometry, trying to add references for every controversial statement and expanding stubs. In describing the branches of geometry, I had added an image for each branch. Now, the images are too big and too many to be aligned correctly, even after I deleted my image for Convex Geometry and shrank the others. I could use some expert opinion on the image layout. I haven't finished my edits (I plan on going over the applications section, and adding congruence, similarity, area and volume to the 'main concepts' section), but they shouldn't involve as many images. Thanks! Brirush ( talk) 16:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Can someone give advice what software is useful for creating mathematical illustrations? I am currently working on fundamental group and would like to create some pictures illustrating some computations of pi_1's. For example, I would like to quickly illustrate the usage of the Seifert-van Kampen theoren by (schematically) drawing a genus 2 surface, and some loops on it, together with labelling and coloring the objects (so, nothing fancy). And of course the software should be free to use. Thanks for any advice. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)I noticed Morley-Wang-Xu element in the new article report. It looks like it needs some care; for example, there's a reference to a figure that doesn't exist. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
02:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Draft:R. E. Moore Prize, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:R. E. Moore Prize and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Draft:R. E. Moore Prize during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits) 12:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Statistics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Statistics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes ( talk) 13:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Someone created a new article titled Hysteretic model with no other articles linking to it. I added a link from Hysteresis to the new article. The new article begins with this sentence:
Hysteretic models may have a generalized displacement as input variable and a generalized force as output variable, or vice versa.
This is quite an extreme example of lack of context-setting at the outset, but I'm not sure how to phrase a better opening sentence. This is a very multidisciplinary subject. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Is this an original research or something in mainstream? I’m inclined to the former (and thus the deletion on the ground), but wondering what other editors think. —- Taku ( talk) 23:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I've proposed a change to improve rendering of {{
radic}}
(e.g. currently √3) to make the two lines meet. Input is requested at
Template talk:Radic#Appearance again before I make such a widely-seen change. Thanks. —[
AlanM1(
talk)]— 23:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey,
Even though I actually do have a masters, I find myself a bit out of my depth looking at the edit request at Talk:Ivan Fesenko#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2019. Can someone who knows more about number theory than I have a look over and assess it, so the XCP backlog can get cleared out? :) Sceptre ( talk) 21:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The article " Expected value" was of length 37 Kb on Aug 7, 2017. Then User:StrokeOfMidnight made hundred of edits; on Dec 3, 2017 the length was 69 Kb, and the article became full of detailed rigorous proofs. Less intensively this was continued till Sep 23, 2018 (74 Kb), and slowly till Aug 2019. On Sep 26, 2019 User:Iyerkri started intensive work on that article, and now its length is 56 Kb. On Oct 3, 2019 StrokeOfMidnight initiated a discussion with Iyerkri on the talk page there: Talk:Expected value#"Cleaning up" Basic Properties. Much earlier I voiced there some doubts towards StrokeOfMidnight (see Section "Expected value#Proving that X=0 (a.s.) when E|X|=0" there); I wrote that your writings tend to smell advanced math, which irritates the majority; we are not on a professional math wiki like EoM, and the expectation is of interest for many non-mathematicians, and proofs are generally unwelcome here (and by the way, on EoM as well), but did not convince StrokeOfMidnight, and did not insist. So... now I am still not sure... the article tends to oscillate between encyclopedic and textbook-ish... is anyone willing to look? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 21:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Recent edits to Involute and Curvature need attention of other eyes than mines. D.Lazard ( talk) 14:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
So I've got a question about body text describing a table. [I may have another question later]. I am trying to write it, but what I've written sounds clunky (especially the second sentence) Can anyone improve it? If you want to explain the data in a completely different way, that's OK too. Tks!
1940–41 | 1941–42 | 1942–43 | 1943–44 | 1944–45 |
---|---|---|---|---|
141,000 | 711,000 | 938,000 | 1,491,000 | 1,230,000 |
♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Time Period | 1940–41 | 1941–42 | 1942–43 | 1943–44 | 1944–45 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sales of occupancy holdings | 141,000 | 711,000 | 938,000 | 1,491,000 | 1,230,000 |
Percentage increase from 1940-1941 | 504% | 665% | 1057% | 872% |
I’ve exhausted my patience for this dispute for the day and so I’m seeking a third opinion here. — Jasper Deng (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Linearity of integration, Constant factor rule in integration, and Sum rule in integration have all been prodded. Someone who knows more than I about calculus pedagogy might want to evaluate whether they should be saved or let go. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
This looks like OR, spread across 64 different anonymous edits. Opinions welcome. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
What makes an integer sequence notable? Is an entry in OEIS or MathWorld enough? Specifically this is a question for the following articles:
but I suspect this to be the case for many other such articles on integer sequences on Wikipedia. They do not have references other than OEIS or MathWorld, if any at all, and are either stubs lacking content other than the information on OEIS or MathWorld, or articles filled with what seems to be original research not found in OEIS or MathWorld. Prova-nome ( talk) 04:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The article
MacCullagh ellipsoid survived a
deletion debate last year (at the time, I said that where there might be an argument for a merge-and-redirect, that can be decided at a later date
). It has since been moved to
MacCullagh ellipsoid and Galois axis, which seems to give
undue prominence to the "Galois axis" part, given that it appears to be the pet idea of
Semjon Adlaj, himself of uncertain wiki-notability, and not an established term. I may take a crack at sorting all this out myself, but perhaps someone would like to beat me to it.
XOR'easter (
talk) 23:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The IP/SPA edit-warring has continued on Galois axis and MacCullagh ellipsoid, so I have taken Galois axis to AfD to end the chance for future edit-warring. The activity has also spread to Tennis racket theorem, j-invariant, and WP:ANI#Please restore the stable version of MacCullagh ellipsoid and Galois axis. Attention appreciated. — MarkH21 ( talk) 15:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia has a better article on the topic de:Trägheitsellipsoid which seems to be related to inertial ellipsoid. It apparently the geometric location of all angular momenta corresponding to the same rotational energy. -- Salix alba ( talk): 19:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Very unfamiliar with how wikipedia works but this seems to be where to submit this. In this article, under the section "Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers", for the value of 10^51 sexdecillion, it instead says sedecillion. This also does not align with the "Standard dictionary numbers" section of the article with the proper spelling. Pnunya ( talk) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Currently, the page Dual-complex numbers redirects to Dual-complex number, but Talk:Dual-complex number redirects to Talk:Dual-complex numbers, not vice versa. Either the article and talk page should both be plural, or else, they should both be singular. JBW only moved the talk page back to the plural title, but not the article. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@ GeoffreyT2000, Joel B. Lewis, and MarkH21: It seems to me more natural to have "complex numbers", "real numbers", etc, but since, as JBL has pointed out, we have the singular forms, I have moved Dual-complex numbers back to Dual-complex number for consistency. And of course moving just the talk page was a mistake; thank you GeoffreyT2000 for pointing it out. JBW ( talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 12:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The current version of the former article links to the latter, with a note: "This notation has little to do with De Bruijn indices, but the name "De Bruijn notation" is often (erroneously) used to stand for it." I do not see how this can be correct - both are ways of representing lambda terms uniquely in terms of alpha-equality, and therefor identical. I'm considering removing this note. Airbornemihir ( talk) 11:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear mathematicians: Here's a draft article that is within the interest of this WikiProject. Perhaps someone who with knowledge of this field can take a look at it.— Anne Delong ( talk) 11:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
In the article
Infinity, there's a statement in the lead: "For example,
Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem uses the existence of very large infinite sets."
I don't really know anything about this stuff, and this struck me as rather surprising, so I went to look for more. However, nothing in the article talks about this, and nothing at the article on the proof seems to say anything about this either. I also couldn't find anything after a cursory search. So I really have no idea if this is a valid statement or not; I've tagged it with a {{
cn}}
for now, but if anyone happens to know more about this, please feel free to either set me right, or even excise the statement with extreme prejudice. Thanks, –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 02:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Normally, if we write one expression on top of a fraction line and another on the bottom, we evaluate both before dividing. This would yield an indeterminate form when both the numerator and denominator are functional integrals with infinite value. Yet the article on functional integrals states “Most functional integrals are actually infinite, but then the limit of the quotient of two related functional integrals can still be finite”. Huh?
The topic overall needs love. It’s way too hand-way right now.— Jasper Deng (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe not controversial but I have made a proposal for the move in the title at Talk:Glossary of Lie algebras. —- Taku ( talk) 04:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. There is a possibility that I will be banned in a next day or 2 for an indefinite or definite period of time (see the very last section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata).
So, it would be nice if some other editors can watch out for non-constructive edits (in good faith or not) to the draft pages listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages. Also, in the thread, there is a proposal that drafts started by me over a year ago should be moved out of the draftspace. Since they are not my drafts, it would be natural to put them as subpages to the project page. If some other editors think this is a good idea, please go ahead and do. (I will not be able to do that myself because of the ban.) —- Taku ( talk) 23:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
When/if banned, I will also try to publish some error fixes (e.g., typos) at my talkpage that should be made to articles in Wikipedia. -- Taku ( talk) 10:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The article titled Classification of manifolds says some manifolds are geometrizable and some are not, and the article titled Geometrization conjecture seems to suggest that that means a manifold admits a "geometric structure". The concept is not defined in either article, and Geometric structure redirects to an article in which that term appears once, without a definition, and the word geometrizable occurs twice, also without a definition. Can someone put a definition at some appropriate place in those articles? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Can someone else take a look at the lead of Infinity? It's gone through several changes recently and it's a balancing act between being technically correct and being common language. I suppose I lean farther towards being technically correct than towards using common language, since I think that the common language surrounding "infinity" is often be misleading (e.g. "it cannot be counted or measured even in principle").
More eyes are always welcome. — MarkH21 ( talk) 23:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This is about common language. It is therefore nonsensical to try introducing mathematical accuracy. "Number" without link would be fine except that it may be confusing for people knowing of infinite numbers. So I put "common number", but I will be fine if "common" is removed. On the other hand, I am strongly against linking.D.Lazard ( talk) 23:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This is an announcement that I have created an alternative account of mine: User:Math-drafts to move some of old drafts in the [[Draft:]] namespace to the subpages of that user page. While I am in control of the account, the draft pages in that user page are meant to belong to the community and all the editors should feel free to edit them as fit (including moving to mainspace or even deleting them). This alternative account itself will never make an edit.
Please let me know if there is any issue. —- Taku ( talk) 09:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
23:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Folks here may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 10#Template:Mabs. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 19:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
For your consideration: the new article Dubner's conjecture. The Dubner in question is Harvey Dubner, the subject of an old (2007) but weakly referenced biography. Do appropriate sources exist? -- JBL ( talk) 16:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
See discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1#MR numbers not rendering properly. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I have been writing the article Draft:Structural Ramsey theory, and have just submitted it for review. I have done my best to give a complete account, and provide adequate context and references. I would appreciate if anyone could give feedback and/or review.
-- Jordan Mitchell Barrett ( talk) 09:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
11:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)I posted details of my problem at the TP there, but additionally take the freedom to submit this here to a broader public:
Please, could someone more dignified than I am take care about adding either missing or more reasonable base cases in the recurrence relations in this article? Both my efforts to either generally have as the base case some not particularly coined as one of the harmonic numbers, or to specifically introduce it at places in specific need, were promptly reverted, ignoring that is already in use at the end of this section. Thanks for taking in consideration. Purgy ( talk) 10:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello
Sorry, I don't speak english, so be kind when you read me.
There is an error in Alhazen's problem article and also in Ibn al-Haytham article: we can read "This (i.e Alhazen's problem) eventually led Alhazen to derive a formula for the sum of fourth powers". There is a lot of treatises written by Ibn al-Haytham. In the The book of Optics, we can find the Alhazen' problem. Its solution has nothing to do with sum of the fourth powers (See A.I. Sabra, Ibn al-Haytham' lemas for solving Alhazen's Problem). The sum of four power is in an another treatise ( fi misahat al-mujassam al-mukafi On the Measurement of the paraboloid). You can read the source (Victor J. Katz (1995), " Ideas of Calculus in Islam and India). The banned contributor Jagged 85 made this mistake in june 2007 [1].
He added also a second error " Mathematicians were not able to find an algebraic solution to the problem until the end of the 20th century" It is non sens because before 20th, people knows already that intersection of two conics led to a quartic equation. (see Paul Bode (1892),« Die Alhazensche Spiegel-Aufgabe in ihrer historischen Entwicklung nebst einer analytischen Lösung des verallgemeinerten Problems to see all the solutions (algebraic, trigonometric, geometric...). p. 86 you can see an equation of the Huygens' hyperbole.
Can you fix these two errors ? Thank's. HB ( talk) 21:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I have collected yet another, but this time very small, batch of articles which include mathematics-related links to DAB pages. Expert attention in solving these puzzles would be welcome. If you solve any of them, remove the {{ dn}} tag from the article and post {{ done}} here.
Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 04:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Totally unproductive sniping -- discussion should be at Talk:Exponentiation. Other editors are invited to participate there. -- JBL ( talk) 15:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
User:Jasper Deng seems to think that explicitly mentioning the exceptions to a supposed "mathematical identity" is somehow inferior than just saying the equation holds "in general". I made some changes which he objected to for the use of elementary logical quantification, which I have now removed. He continues to revert for no apparent reason. He's also made some wildly wrong statements like "The convention in mathematics is to use intensional definitions" and has confused the logical negation of an equality with a quantified inequality. Stemdude ( talk) 02:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC) @ Stemdude: insists on an arcane interpretation of the ≠ symbol that is contrary to literally every textbook I've seen. I'm already at WP:3RR. I'd like someone with more experience in formal logic to chime in, however, I believe that his concerns are unfounded. Please leave any comments you may have on that article's talk page.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
|
Hi
1) It is César R. K. Stradiotto again.
2) To avoid any problems, now I just consulted the video tutorial to post complains about wikipedia pages. thanks.
3) The last post I did was about this page [List of two-dimensional geometric shapes]
[2], where the section
Polygons with specific numbers of sides -Quadrilaterals --Trapezus
were pointing to a Wikipedia "Pornhub"-about page.
4) I just saw the link were changed, but still not corrected: Now the link on Trapezus is pointing to a geographic place:
Trabzon
[3] (Just look for Wikipedia Trabzon, on Google).
That´s it.
Cordially
César R. K. Stradiotto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.85.185.93 ( talk) 15:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Look at the history of Lagrange's four-square theorem. I added a section revealing an invalid variant of the theorem. This means a variant of what the theorem says that would make it false. Three times, however, someone reverted me. Interestingly enough, there's an article, Beal's conjecture, which has a similar section that no one objected to. We need some kind of discussion on what the best rule for how articles on mathematical theorems should deal with sections like this. Georgia guy ( talk) 15:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Jamgoodman adds systematically Category:Mathematical objects to many mathematical articles. As almost all mathematical articles could belong to this category, I have open a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 23#Category:Mathematical objects. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Is this the same thing as Journal der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung? Or Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung?
Mostly asking to see if redirecting to German Mathematical Society would be appropriate. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone's looking for something to do, I just stumbled upon List of mathematical constants, which is in fairly rough shape. The table is somewhat broken, and perhaps has some columns that could simply be removed. It's a bigger project than I have time for right now, so I thought I'd mention here. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 15:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Is numerical modelling the same as mathematical modelling? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)numerical modellingbut it seems to be in the specific context of a climate model, possibly using numerical techniques to solve a box model. Certes ( talk) 22:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Currently, we have two articles: correspondence (mathematics) and binary relations. Set-theoretically speaking, there is no essential difference. Wikipedia insists a correspondence is an ordered triple (A, B, f) where f is a subset of , while a relation is just f or rather what f determines. While I can (a sort of) understand the difference, I don't think the distinction is enough for separate articles; basically the difference is like a difference between a function and the graph of a function (in fact, " binary relation" seems to be a bit confused about whether it wants to discuss a correspondence or a relation; see Binary relation#Is a relation more than its graph?). So, I'm inclined to just merge the two into one, except algebraic geometry bit in " correspondence (mathematics)" feels quite out of a place at " binary relation" and best to split off to correspondence (algebraic geometry). Thoughts? -- Taku ( talk) 21:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this article and assessing it? It was created by someone hired by Pazy's family and it was not submitted for review via WP:AFC. I've done a bit of minor clean up, but there's still some issues that need sorting, particularly with respect to the sourcing (it seems that most of them are to documents, etc. uploaded to Commons). I'm assuming the subject meets WP:ACADEMIC and is notable for an article to be written, but some serious trimming/rewriting might be needed to bring the article more inline with current policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a dispute as to whether map (mathematics) should be a disambiguation page or not; i.e., should redirect to map (disambiguation). Note the content of the page has already merged with function (mathematics). To resolve the conflict, inputs from more editors are needed; the main objection is from an editor who claims “a function is not a morphism in the category of sets.” —- Taku ( talk) 18:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
To add some context, I guess I just don’t see a point of an article explaining *terminology* as opposed to *concept* in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place to explain concepts, at least when math is concerned; terminology note is important, sure, but is of a secondary importance. For me, thus, this page is a disambig page in an effective sense since the concepts of a map are already discussed at other places like function (mathematics), morphism (category theory), homomorphism, etc. It doesn’t help that those “terminology” articles tend to be of low quality and low information ( #Correspondence vs. binary relation above is another instance). Not to mention, our readers often complain about those article... —- Taku ( talk) 19:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
See also: Talk:Map_(mathematics)#Suggestion to dedicate this article to the use of Map as a concept in mathematics when it is not a synonym of function. -- Taku ( talk) 23:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I’m probably sounding repetitive but here, a very similar type of an article: embedding. While there is a certainly a general concept of embedding, I don’t think it’s useful to use a “single article” to cover embedding in topology as well as those in other fields. Is there any benefit of doing (instead of having separate articles) that I’m not seeing? —- Taku ( talk) 20:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Trovatore, yes, functions are not defined as the arrows of **Set**. Functions are defined, and then **Set** is defined as an emergent concept. This shouldn't be news to anyone. Now, the other thing that happens is that there are two types of references: (1) Those that (modulo wording) define functions as correspondences (<- beware User:TakuyaMurata has been vandalizing this page too.) with the 'unique image property' and (2) Those authors who define (modulo wording, although in this case they tend to be more explicit) functions as relations with the 'unique image property'. There is a third in which they explicitly state (2) and then hand-waving-ly add the codomain to the function. Those are essentially in (1). As a result, reliable sources have two positions, one in which there is a function for each arrow of **Set** and one for which there are many. It looks like it has to be reminded, specially to User:TakuyaMurata, that Wikipedia works by presenting what is contained in reliable sources, not what random editors imagine the concepts should be in Mathematics. Cactus0192837465 ( talk) 13:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
To other editors, we (Cactus and I) need a tie-breaker for [5]. Please note we have Correspondence (algebraic geometry) and the rest in binary relation; my edit thus doesn’t mean any information loss. -- Taku ( talk) 17:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Root 2 and Root two are currently redirects to Square root of 2 and List of numbers respectively. They have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Root two where your comments are invited. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm currently expanding WP:CRAPWATCH (a project to detected predatory/unreliable sources) with various sources that document unreliable journals in various fields of research. Are there any such list mathematics for mathematics? Preferably externally sourced to reliable people, rather than personal opinion. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 09:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Assistance handling an WP:SPA at k shortest path routing and a related talk would be helpful. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Statistics includes a table of articles tagged as probability and statistics with the {{
maths rating}}
template. But the table shows no articles. Can someone here take a look and fix it? Thank you.--
76.14.38.58 (
talk) 22:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Here I need to point out a conspicuous elephant in a room, but maybe that particular room doesn't get a lot of attention. Our article titled Wishart distribution contains this assertion:
[I]f n ≥ p, X has a Wishart distribution with n degrees of freedom if it has the probability density function
where is the determinant of and Γp is the multivariate gamma function defined as
Anyone who wants to understand that or make any use of it or do anything at all with it will instantly wonder how in Hell we're supposed to integrate a thing like that, i.e. with respect to which measure is this a density, or to put it another way, with respect to which variables over which set are we integrating? Observe that the argument is a positive-definite matrix and we may denote its entries by for . So a naive guess is we're talking about
so it would be just Lebesgue measure. But that raises question: since is symmetric, should we have or the like? So Lebesgue measure on a space of dimension And what are the bounds of integration? The bounds may seem messy, but I think I may know a way to deal with that neatly. But is that what is meant, or is there some standard measure on the space of positive-definite symmetric matrices that anyone who knows about it would expect to be used here, or what? In any case, answers to these questions ought to be in the article.
Same problem in Inverse-Wishart distribution.
So maybe tomorrow I'll go to the library and look some things up, but maybe someone here knows something off the top of their head. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Now added to the article. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 06:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
User:Legacypac was wondering if this draft is "useful/fixable" (I have no idea). So, is it useful? already covered in mainspace? -- Taku ( talk) 00:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
(but not Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition)I do not know anyone who types en-dashes into search bars rather than hyphens. So I will create the other redirect. -- JBL ( talk) 17:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I've significantly expanded numerical linear algebra. Where can I request an assessment of it to revise its Stub Class label? - Astrophobe ( talk) 22:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
In our system of mathematical notation coding, which is not LaTeX although people call it that, and is not actually TeX either, I found this in Barnes G-function:
I changed it so that it says this:
You see the difference on the second line: in the first version, the space between the minus sign and the z is what is normally followed when the minus sign is used as a binary operation symbol, rather the smaller amount of space that normally appears when it's a unary operation, thus:
I tried the same code in genuine LaTeX and (as expected) this problem of incorrect spacing did not occur. The way I fixed the problem is that I changed this line of code:
to the following:
I found three instances of the same bug in the same section of that article and fixed them all the same way.
I don't recall that I've noticed this bug before. I'd hate to think that I'd encountered it without noticing, it, but such unpleasantenss can actually happen. How long has this been with us? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
22:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Our WP entry for the site describes it as inactive and apparently they moved their content last year to GitHub with the original website currently somewhere between dysfunctional and not maintained (and I suspect it being ditched in the future). Does anybody have any background on PlanethMath's exact status and planned future? We still have that collaboration project listed on our project page, but that seems to be inactive/dead for years now as well. Should we remove that? Do we still have an overlap of active editors or anybody doing work on the collaboration?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 02:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
{{planetmath reference|id=3485|title=Axiom of Foundation}}
{{PlanetMath|urlname=axiomoffoundation|title="Axiom of foundation"}}
.Based on the discussion so far I removed PlanetMath from the project page now. As for the PlanethMath-Links in articles it might be best as suggested above to handle them individually on an article basis. Links that for now still works (at least most of the time) may be kept for now and those that hsve become completely dysfunctional/unavailable can be removed or replaced by copies on archive.org.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 10:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Attention WikiProjects. We are designing a bot script to perform a few article assessment–related tasks and would appreciate your feedback.
Qzekrom (
talk) 08:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I've done approximately this same reversion three times, and I wonder if the user who added this stuff may persist. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Deletion of a new article titled Gadi Moran has been proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gadi Moran. Opinions can be posted on the latter page. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Geometry of roots of real polynomials is not a new article it as been proposed for deletion for the second time at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometry of roots of real polynomials. Opinion of editors that are competent in mathematics would be useful there. D.Lazard ( talk) 20:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
If you would like to contribute to reaching a consensus on whether Infobox mathematical statement should be included in Fermat's Last Theorem, please see this talk. — MarkH21 ( talk) 05:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude ( talk) 06:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
New portals have been added in the "see also" section of several of our articles such as in e (mathematical constant), algebra, circles. There are more than twenty such automatically created portals. Please, participate to the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals. Should we nominate for deletion all these portals that are related to mathematics? D.Lazard ( talk) 15:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Even the most advanced automated content creation is dangerous. [1] [2]User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] ( talk) 18:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
References
There is a sparsity of mathematical infoboxes and I think that one for mathematical statements (broadly construed, e.g. theorems, conjectures, propositions, lemmas, etc.) could be very useful on many particularly important mathematical articles. I've drafted a very simple one. Would other editors here welcome such a infobox? Feedback on its usage as well as its implementation (e.g. possible additional fields) would be very welcome as this is my first attempt at an infobox template! MarkH21 ( talk) 06:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Contested
or just omit the field altogether until consensus is reached. A non-logic example would be the
abc conjecture. I'm not sure evidence for/against validity would be a viable infobox field though.I've thought about this some more, and I'd like to respond to the points brought up. The heart of the opposition seems to be that any infobox is a trivialization of the subject. However, the infobox neither detracts from the material of the articles for the knowledgeable nor expert reader, who may glance past the infobox just as one would for any biographical article. Meanwhile, the majority of articles on mathematical statements are too technical for the general reader (or even knowledgeable reader) to whom we should strive to make the articles more accessible. In particular, while basic details such as its history and its logical connections to other statements perhaps should be easily accessible in the lead (although I disagree for many cases), the fact of the matter is that they usually are not.
An implementation of the template, in great moderation and keeping the MOS purpose in mind, should add value to these articles – particularly for the general reader casually looking up math on Wikipedia. — MarkH21 ( talk) 10:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Bumping thread for 21 days. Referred to in a TfD listing –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 05:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
There is a long-standing dispute flaring up again over a short, one-sentence-fragment draft at Draft:Bredon cohomology which needs input from editors familiar with mathematics topics. The crux of the issue is that the only editor interested in keeping the draft has not worked on it in five years, and nobody else who has interacted with this has the knowledge to edit topics of this complexity. If someone could help us work out what this draft is and where it should go, your efforts will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 16:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I just stumbled on this video by Numberphile talking about a thing he called "glitch prime". I was surprised to see we don't have an article on that (or at least a redirect to an equivalent concept. Basically they're numbers, when expressed in a base, are an odd number of digits where all the digits is the maximum number in the base, and the middle digit is one less (e.g. 11011 in binary, 22222122222 in ternary, 99899 in base ten and so on), which also happen to be primes. I could be explaining this wrong, but that was my takeaway.
Not really sure if that passes any sort of WP:N standards, of if it's a 'thing' in math, but I was surprised not to have an article on them. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, this is WP:OR, as the author of the video does not cite any source. So, this does not belong to WP. D.Lazard ( talk) 12:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This is precisely the case of "glitch primes". D.Lazard ( talk) 18:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable. In WP:SPS:
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. An anonymous blogger, such as nunberphile, cannot fit this definition of a self-published expert. So, the fact that this source is not reliable is the result of Wikipedia's definition of "reliable". It is not a belief nor an opinion. D.Lazard ( talk) 18:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here. -- 173.79.47.7 ( talk) 23:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Robust geometric computation Legacypac ( talk) 03:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Proto-value Functions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I have added these two drafts to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages. -- Taku ( talk) 23:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I have moved Proto-value functions to Proto-value function. I left it as an orphaned article, i.e. no other articles link to it. I don't know which other topics should link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Please categorize Draft:M* search algorithm Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The list was Taku's excellent idea. If other wikiprojects did this more good drafts could be improved. Legacypac ( talk) 06:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
If the new article titled Entropy influence conjecture should be kept, then it needs work. In particular, it's not all that clearly stated, and no other articles link to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
03:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
So I don't know what should be done with this draft. The article title seems too vague, which is of course fixable and the topic itself seems legitimate (but I don't have a background to review the article itself myself). -- Taku ( talk) 01:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem to have much content to me. Is this not just giving examples where all data points lie on a simplex? It also happens to be almost entirely contained in Aitchison geometry (which seems to just define some operations on the simplex and a few isomorphisms, although perhaps their significance in statistics is greater than I can tell).
Seems to me like at least one of the two articles should be merged into the other or to Simplex#Applications (which itself needs some work). See the talk page discussion at compositional data and talk page discussion at Aitchison geometry that I just started. — MarkH21 ( talk) 06:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
It is also obvious that if two of these are merged, then Aitchison geometry would be merged into Compositional data and not into Simplex, since analysis of compositional data is the purpose of Aitchison's work. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your input! I've done the merge now, made some other revisions to the writing, and added some links to the article / pointing at the article. — MarkH21 ( talk) 07:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
There's a dispute and discussion ongoing at Talk:Sieve of Eratosthenes over whether the lead of the article should mention sieve theory. Please participate with your opinions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for bringing up an old issue. Just posting a notice that an official RfC has been posted for the FLT infobox debate: Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem#Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement. Hopefully this can lead to the debate being effectively and peacefully closed in either direction. — MarkH21 ( talk) 07:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
peacefully", if no one gets stabbed as a result of this issue, I will be very disappointed ;). -- JBL ( talk) 16:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Regarding
Karen Uhlenbeck's win of the Abel prize,
Coffeeandcrumbs wrote on
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red that "This article has the opportunity to appear at ITN today. Please help improve the article. We need to expand the Research section to explain why she won the Abel Prize. Please help!
". My feeling is that this project is more likely than WIR to include people who understand her research well enough to help, so I am copying the message here. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I am about to run off to work so can't deal with this properly, but attention is definitely needed with respect to the edits to mathematician infoboxes by this user: Debaditya2000 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There have been some reversions (e.g. by D.Lazard at Paul Erdos and by me at Andrey Markov and Alexander Grothendieck), but there are many more. Courtesy ping: @ Debaditya2000:. -- JBL ( talk) 13:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The question set by Debaditya2000 is about the style of the field "known for" in infoboxes of mathematicians. Debaditya2000 edits consist of providing a field containing only <show>, which allows display a long list that seems copied from articles titled "List of things named after ...". IMO, this breaks the purpose of infoboxes, which is to provide a synthetic view. For people with many important contributions, giving a short synthetic summary of them is very difficult, but a long indiscriminate list is certainly not the right solution. This needs a discussion here. Until reaching a consensus here, Debaditya2000 must not pushing his personal ideas by editing again infoboxes. D.Lazard ( talk) 10:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree,
D.Lazard with providing a "synthetic view" which seems rather "insincere"/"superfluous" for view in infoboxes, rather to provide an informative yet, summarized view and I repeat for the 3rd time "intuitively understandable for the reader" type of a view. Just like in these articles:
Richard Feynman,
John von Neumann or
Paul Dirac, which have used the same formats that I tried to present in my editing. Which seem again to have copied from
List of things named after Richard Feynman,
List of things named after John von Neumann and
List of things named after Paul Dirac. And all these articles are rated. Hence, it doesn't matter whether it is copied or not, it matters whether the information provided thus forth is correct or incorrect. So, rather than to continue this long and unproductive discussion, I think my allowance should be granted ASAP. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Debaditya2000 (
talk •
contribs)
This picture is plainly wrong, and is used in the article titled Voronoi pole. Is this simply a result of using the wrong aspect ratio? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed that there are the stubs Genus-two surface and Genus-three surface which would probably be better suited as redirects to the section n-dimensional torus of Torus. The articles don't say much and have few links pointing towards them. Respective proposals: genus two and genus three. — MarkH21 ( talk) 19:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
Main article}}
pointer from the "Genus g surface" section of the
Torus page. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 20:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Areas of mathematics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Areas of mathematics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 12:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Folks here might be interested in WT:WPP#Postmodern mathematics about some concerns I had on this article. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 14:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Everyone remember this fun from last year (continued here)? This time it started on Claude Shannon ( talk page discussion for masochists) and seems to have progressed to ridiculousness -- note the inclusion on Paul Erdős again (which I have reverted). Some assistance dealing with this would be welcome. -- JBL ( talk) 23:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I found this in an article:
It is coded as follows:
Obviously this was intended to look like this:
Often one avoids inline "TeX" because of bizarre mismatches in font size and alignment. Nowadays we have the following sort of thing:
Just how well that works is a matter on which I am not ready to opine, although some instances look good to me. So one could reasonably replace what I found, maybe. But still it would seem a good idea to fix the "overline" text-decoration feature, if possible. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)The AfD on Rick Norwood (a mathematician and comics publisher) has drawn attention from editors who personally know him due to a Facebook post by the subject Rick Norwood ( talk · contribs) (courtesy ping). Any reviews from independent editors would be greatly appreciated. — MarkH21 ( talk) 00:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying to fix a poorly written sentence in the topology article. It includes multiple uses of "we". But another editor is reverting my improvement. Also, the key terms in the section containing the sentence should be wikilinked (which I did, but the other user reverted). Could someone please take a look at the article? Jrheller1 ( talk) 00:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
What exactly is incorrect about this version of the sentence?I personally wouldn't say that it's incorrect, just that it's not at all clear what the meaning of that string of words is supposed to be. What does "the definition of an open set" mean? What is "the nature of" continuous functions, etc., and how is it "determined"? (Honestly though I'm not sure such a sentence is needed there at all.) -- JBL ( talk) 23:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Multiple people have complained about "nature of", so maybe "The definition of an open set completely determines the continuous functions, the compact sets, and the connected sets" would be better. I don't understand what is unclear about "definition" and "determines". But as JBL stated, the sentence might not even be necessary. Jrheller1 ( talk) 04:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
So I changed two sentences to:
The definition of an open set completely determines the continuous functions, the compact sets, and the connected sets. A choice of open subsets is called a topology.
Another user changed it back to this version:
If the collection of subsets that are designated as open is changed, then this affects which functions are continuous, as well as which sets are compact and which sets are connected. A choice of subsets to be called open is a topology.
Which of these two versions is better? Jrheller1 ( talk) 15:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Which of these approx 30 Portals does the math project provide support to or are you interested in managing? From Category:Mathematics_portals.
Legacypac ( talk) 22:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion at Talk:Tian Gang, with a disagreement about whether we should treat all mathematicians the same or all Chinese people the same in terms of their names. More input would be welcome. — Kusma ( t· c) 07:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I have collected another batch of math(s)-related articles which contain links to DAB pages, where expert attention would be welcome. Search for 'disam' in read mode, or for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve one of these puzzles, post {{ done}} here.
Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 01:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Percentages Legacypac ( talk) 06:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
A few years ago some software packages appeared on the web somewhere that generates TeX code for those who don't know how to do that by hand. I don't know what any of them are called, nor where or how they are found. But at first some of them generated code that looked as if it was written by someone with a major psychosis. That problem may have subsided. But we find things like this:
I just fixed a whole bunch of things like that in the article titled Topological geometry.
Apparently one of these packages encloses binary operation symbols and binary relation symbols within {curly braces}, writing
instead of
and that affects what the reader sees, as follows:
(There are compelling reasons why TeX was designed to work that way, and I have found that some people don't know about those reasons.)
I suspect somebody sees that and "corrects" it by manually adding spaces, changing
At any rate, multiple instances of the latter usage were in the Topological geometry article until I fixed them a moment ago.
Is there something that can be done to prevent this problem? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
insource:
magic word to search in the articles' definition instead of their rendered version) :See my remarks at Talk:Sims conjecture. Maybe someone here knows how to clean this up. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Every item in the List of unsolved problems in mathematics now has a bluelink, a reference or both. There's still an "other" section whose items could stand a proper classifying, if anyone feels like tackling that. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
As some of you may know, a couple months back, Commons added the feature of uploading .stl 3D models. When opened, these files can be interacted with: zoom in, pan around, etc (see the 3D model on the right). I think they would be a great addition to articles about shapes and solids, such as Cube and Mobius strip. I've already replaced some of the lead images with 3D versions, and I hope to add more.
There are some issues to note though: The 3D models aren't interactive on mobile, and smooth surfaces aren't well replicated (Wikipedia's 3D file viewer doesn't smooth things). – XYZt ( talk | contribs) – 05:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Any use? If not just ignore it and it will go away. Thanks. Legacypac ( talk) 06:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Dimension of a scheme was just created. While I can check for structure, sourcing and copyvio stuff, would appreciate someone with more knowledge on the subject to take a look and make sure it's notable, and well, correct. Onel5969 TT me 14:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Seeing a recent note about "well-intended vandals" I recall an anecdotal case from my childhood. Our guest asked me a geometric problem; I solved it and wrote for him a solution. He read loudly: "...where triangle's area is triangle's area" and asked me menacingly: what's this? I asked: where? He showed me a line: "...where is triangle's area". After a moment of confusion, I realized that for him "" means "triangle's area" and is read "triangle's area" by an eternal global indestructible convention. And, looking at him, I realized that he would aggressively defend this position. Being just a teenager (not a professor yet) I preferred to escape.
Back to Wiki. I think many (non-mathematicians) believe that all mathematical notations are an eternal global indestructible convention. Seeing a formula slightly different from their textbook they just "fix the error". I see no way to solve this problem. Do you?
By the way, I guess, many think (likewise) that words of different languages are related by the canonical bijective correspondence. But this is not our problem. :-) Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 05:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Xiuxiong Chen. Thanks! Dennui ( talk) 04:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello! In a book by Ivan Niven there is a proof which is probably the best proof of the product rule for beginners. It's not presented there. I would like to show it on the page, but English is not my native language, and I don't know how to paraphrase it very well. Would anyone be interested in adding it to the article? (for the benefit of the freshmen!). Dennui ( talk) 19:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Another think... In a book by Vladimir Arnold he shows a geometric interpretation of the product rule (with a rectangle... you know that image?...), which makes it "obvious". Dennui ( talk) 19:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Which is the best proof for beginners made depend on which kind of beginner it is. I like this one: side of a rectangle moves while remaining parallel to where it was, thus causing the sides that it meets to grow or shrink. Now let two sides move. And then: The length of the side times the rate at which it moves equals the rate at which the area grows, but it's two sides. The lengths are ƒ; and g; the rate of growth of the side of length ƒ is g′ and the rate of growth of the side of length g is ƒ′. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The length of the side times the rate at which it moves equals the rate at which the area growsshould be "The length of the side times the rate at which it moves in the direction away from the other side and perpendicular to itself equals the rate at which the area grows." — MarkH21 ( talk) 19:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Michael Hardy: That's essentially Arnol'd argument! Dennui ( talk) 16:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
By the way, Niven's is more algebraic and is better than the ones presented. A guy named Howard Levi presents an algebraic one in his unusual calculus textbook. Dennui ( talk) 16:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I have created a new article titled Markov chain central limit theorem. It could use more work. In particular
Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I swapped the link in the {{ mathgenealogy}} template (widely used in our biographies of mathematicians) from NDSU to AMS; please discuss this change at Template talk:MathGenealogy. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion on the overlap and naming of the articles: algebraic curve, plane curve, curve, and differential geometry of curves (especially the first two). Much of the discussion is about the focus on plane curves in algebraic curve and curve. Some restructuring needs to be done because of the overlaps and redirects. — MarkH21 ( talk) 05:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Here is an AfD that could use additional attention from those with expertise in mathematics and set theory. Eozhik ( talk) 14:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm pondering a rewrite of Discrete logarithm based on eight reliable sources that I've assembled at Talk:Discrete logarithm#Reliable sources. The rewrite raises some questions for me about what constitutes original research and plagiarism in math articles. Here are a few:
I'm raising the issue here, because similar questions apply to many math articles, and I can't find specific policy. Mgnbar ( talk) 14:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
We are told to "Be bold" in editing. Not knowing algebraic geometry, I created a page called Kodaira map, redirecting it to Kodaira–Spencer map. If it needs further work, probably someone here knows what should be done. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Another new article. Could use the eyes of you good folks here at this project. Thanks for taking the time. Onel5969 TT me 01:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Versor (physics) has been proposed for deletion since April 18, and will probably be deleted (if nothing changes) today or tomorrow. Anyone want to save it? — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
survived AfD in 2016. I can't find this AfD. Rather than going through the whole rigmarole in order to delete an article that we don't need but which won't go away, I'm going to make it a redirect into unit vector. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi! String theory is within this project's scope, so I was hoping somebody would have a look at the above edit request and implement/deny it as required. I understand pretty much nothing the abstract for the source is saying. Thanks in advance, Nici Vampire Heart 22:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Folks, please check out my recent edits on the Iterated_function and Tetration pages as well as my comments at Talk:Tetration#Moving_towards_a_verifiable_article. Both pages suffer from liberal edits including non-attributable and nonverifiable mathematical content that have never been peer reviewed or published. I have five-year-old comments asking for people to fix their entries that have never been responded to. The content of the pages is ruled by politics, not Wikipedia policy. I would like to hear of better options than what I have offered. Thanks.
Daniel Geisler ( talk) 19:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Please disregard. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for me to benefit people.
Daniel Geisler ( talk) 08:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
This article is linked to in Curve (mathematics). I came to it because its title does not indicate what is the subject. The first sentence is "A two-dimensional graph is a set of points in two-dimensional space". For me, a set of points in two-dimensional space is called a plane figure. The content and the figures suggest that it what is intended by this title. The article does not contain any reference, and is tagged as such. What should be done with this article? My opinion is that it should be either deleted or redirected to graph of a function. But other advices would be useful. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I have prodded the article. D.Lazard ( talk) 08:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Goro Shimura just passed away yesterday, so I have updated the article and made an RD nomination at ITN/Candidates. Comments and article improvements would be most welcome! — MarkH21 ( talk) 10:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
(Note there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometry of an algebraic curve.) I have split-off some of content to separate articles ( Severi variety (Hilbert scheme) and Hurwitz scheme) and merged the rest into Draft:Complete algebraic curve and its talkpage. This should solve the issue that the page looks too unfocused and for me, this seems like the most constructive steps instead of arguing about the page. I just sincerely hope we focus on the discussion and development of the content (not the history or the procedure). —- Taku ( talk) 13:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
In Nowhere-zero flow we find this code:
With a certain window geometry, one sees this:
To say the least, the line-break is in a very very bad place. But " " is supposed to prevent that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi.
Wrote a wall of text on
talk:Spin group #Incorrect use of “⊗” while their notation is clearly wrong.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 18:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Smarandache came up at Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit2021/December#Request for comment (which came to my attention here), so it may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey, WikiProject Math,
I was reading an article and came across a mathematical symbol that looks like a fork or trident, placed on its side like an "E". Can anyone tell me what this is? I wasn't even sure where to look for an explanation and the article didn't explain what it meant. Thanks, anyone. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Curve#What is a curve? for a discussion that concerns several articles.
See also Talk:Plane curve#Merge with algebraic curve? and Talk:Curve#Sections on differentiable curves for recent related discussions]]. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Members of this project may be able to assist at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 9#Interior solution. Certes ( talk) 21:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
A few months ago, I had a brief exchange
here with
Reddwarf2956 about
this addition to the article
Prime gap, about something Reddwarf2956 calls the
Ramanujan prime corollary. In addition to not understanding how their response answers my question (and so not being clear on the mathematical validity), I am worried about original research and self-promotion: the attribution at
Ramanujan prime says The Ramanujan Prime Corollary is due to John Nicholson
(uncited), and Reddwarf2956 signs their talkpage posts as "John W. Nicholson". I would be grateful if another editor could take a look to determine whether this content (at both
Prime gap and
Ramanujan prime) is meaningful, and whether it belongs in Wikipedia. (I have not tried to assess whether similar remarks have been added elsewhere.) --
JBL (
talk) 12:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The article Voronoi pole is in dire need of attention from an expert, preferably in computational geometry. -- Lambiam 22:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Possibly this anonymous editor is trying to say something, but obviously what was added is unsuitable for anything to be kept in its present form. Can someone who knows what Euler did with nested radicals decipher it and possibly clean it up? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Huh, interesting. In fact, if a+sqrt(b)=4k^2 then x=y=k^2 will do. 31, 25,9,9 for instance. Or I wonder if there are counterexamples with irrational left and right hand sides. Reyk YO! 15:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@ D.Lazard: I believe the proof is incorrect. We have that is a solution to , but . Perhaps we could use an elementary proof: Assuming is not square, then implies that and , so . Pbroks13 ( talk) 15:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The redirect Absolute number, which currently targets Absolute value, has been nominated for deletion at RFD. You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 19#Absolute number. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Number theory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Number theory until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 21:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I was looking at a draft article with the {{ Maths banner}} on it. I clicked on the Drafts link and was sent to Category:Draft-Class mathematics articles, which to my surprise was empty. I dug around and found the article at Category:Draft-Class mathematics pages. Is there a way that the banner can be changed? The "articles" category appears to be the standard page (for {{ category class}} as well) but for some reason it gets sent to the "pages" category.-- Auric talk 16:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
|ASSESSMENT_CAT = mathematics pages
to |ASSESSMENT_CAT = mathematics articles
in {{
Maths banner}} but I'm not sure what else that might affect. The only other page that would obviously need editing is
WP:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages.
Certes (
talk) 16:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I am suspicious of this edit. I cleaned up the formatting and added a "citation needed" tag. The editor is User:Lewisbrito; the alleged fact added is attributed to "Hamilton Brito", and Google finds this page belonging to "Hamilton Brito (Lewis)". Is this "OR"? And is the mathematics correct? (I haven't yet even reached the point of looking closely at what it says yet.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
There is currently an edit request from an editor with a conflict of interest pending in the Gray code article which requires a math background, in particular, a knowledge of the reflected binary code used in that numeral system. Any editors who might be able to review this request would be most appreciated. Spintendo 01:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
A new article on mathematician Nail H. Ibragimov has been nominated for deletion. Feel free to weigh in with your opinions at the AfD, but I have a different request. In the current version of the article, at the bottom in the "Further reading" section, there is a link to a three-page biography of Ibragimov, in Russian, published for his 70th birthday. I think it would be useful in expanding the text of our article, but I don't read Russian and (as an image of a printed document rather than web text) it's inconvenient to run through an automatic translator. Would someone who does read Russian like to give it a try? — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Geometry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Geometry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 23:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Should the article covering lemma and core model be merged? Neither has enough context that I can be sure I understand them, and both seem to make little sense without the other. I am a set theory expert, but am not good with large cardinals.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Anyone interested in an international math community group https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Math ? -- Physikerwelt ( talk) 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:
Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project
From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.
Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Several years ago there was a lengthy argument between myself (under my old username "SharkD") and another user ( User:Ag2gaeh) over the usage of terminology related to 3D projection and descriptive geometry, especially the terms " Axonometry" and " Axonometric projection". However there seems to be a difference in English sources versus European sources. For instance, I did two brief surveys of English language sources ( #1, #2), but the European literature seems to differ in many ways. I was wondering if someone could take a look into the topic. There also seems to be a language issue, in that the original author of Axonometry is not fluent in English, so I'm not clear exactly on how the literature differs, except that "axonometry" in Europe seems to include all types of parallel projection, not just a few types as is common (but not universal) in English sources. In general I am wondering if we should switch over to the European terminology. ➧ datumizer ☎ 09:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Datumizer: A minor note about 'steps' order dependency' in Axonometry#Principle of axonometry: the clause refers to three bulleted sub-steps inside the step 3, not to steps 1 through 4 – started from zero-zero you can go by x in the X direction, then by y in the Y direction or the other way, and you'll get to the same (x, y) point. Similarly you can make the Z step before, between or after X & Y steps and finally get to the same (x, y, z). -- CiaPan ( talk) 10:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
In German textbooks
In English textbooks an axonometric projection seems to be always an orthographic (orthogonal)) projection.
Addendum: An essential practical improvement of the procedure Axonometrie is the "Einschneideverfahren" (or "Schnellriss"), which is due to the Austrian mathematican Ludwig Eckhart. It omits determining single coordinates and their foreshortenings and facilitates marking image points.-- Ag2gaeh ( talk) 14:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPM. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Captions#Formulas in captions that may be of interest to folks here. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 01:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I found this in the article titled Random variable:
It was coded like this:
I changed the code to this:
But ideally, one would like to see this:
This works in LaTeX, but it doesn't work here, in this software that people sometimes incorrectly call "LaTeX":
That same code, in genuine LaTeX, would yield something about like this:
But here we have to code that as follows:
I don't like doing that in lots of Wikipedia articles because some day this bug may be fixed and in fact people do learn how to code these things by looking at code that they find here.
I think this has been reported (I seem to recall having reported it a couple of years ago), and that means some time before the 29th century developers may get to it, or may not. Can anything be done to get this attended to besides hoping that developers who don't understand the need understand the need? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
\operatorname{\underset \omega {ess\ sup}} |X(\omega)-Y(\omega)|
The redirect ≘ (U+2258 CORRESPONDS TO) which currently targets Binary relation has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 18#≘, your comments in that discussion would be appreciated. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Please can someone review the few remaining links to dab Mathematical formalism and divert them to relevant articles or unlink? Thanks, Certes ( talk) 15:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! We have a similar problem with Correspondence (mathematics), which discusses specific types of correspondence and has now been tagged as a dab. Certes ( talk) 15:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a new page titled Gap-Hamming problem. On the theory that "gap" is being used here as a common noun, I set the initial in lower case. If it's actually someone's name, then the article should say who that is and the hyphen in "gap-Hamming" should become an en-dash. I found no links to this article at all and added one to the "See also" section of Hamming distance.
So further work is needed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Our article on Zero divisors may have some WP:NPOV problems, taking Bourbaki's choice to include 0 as a zero divisor as the "right" one, and being dismissive of those references that exclude it. In fact, in the four textbooks I checked (Gallian, Fraleigh, Rotman, and Dummit & Foote), every one of them excluded 0 in their definitions of zero divisors. I'm not sure of the best way to proceed, so I'll just leave this here, and anyone interested can take a whack at it. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 17:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProofWiki got relisted and now deleted seemingly without any/much input from the math community. I just post that here in case anybody thinks it might be worth to revisit that deletion. Peronally I would have preferred to keep the article, although it could be hard to convince non-mathematics editors on the base of Wikipedia:GNG.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I recently created an article: Hasse–Schmidt derivation. Boleyn insists that the article, which in my opinion has completely acceptable references, needs more footnotes. Any opinions on such a situation? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 20:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
In LaTeX, one finds \wedge and \bigwedge. The latter looks different in a "displayed" context from the way it appears in an "inline" context, not only in that it is somewhat smaller, but also in that any subscripts and superscripts appear to the right rather than directly above and below the symbol. Thus three forms, here exemplified:
In full generality, let denote the kth exterior power of the dual map to the differential.
Following Dieudonne, there is a unique
which may be thought of as the fibral part of ωx with respect to ηy.
This afternoon I did a fairly large number of edits to
Differential form, where I found quite a large number of occurrences of \wedge where \bigwedge should appear.
Is it possible that
ok, So clearly such things are possible, but would one expect to encounter such things as frequently as one does here? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
" Streamline upwind Petrov–Galerkin pressure-stabilizing Petrov–Galerkin formulation for incompressible Navier–Stokes equations" may be the most unusual article title I've seen. No other articles link to it. Probably if it ought to exist, it needs attention. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
A source would be ideal, but I think Staszek Lem ( talk · contribs) is in the wrong here. More comments would be appreciated.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The redirect Η-pseudolinearity, which currently targets Pseudoconvex function (where pseudolinearity also redirects) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 10#Η-pseudolinearity. The discussion needs attention from editors with relevant subject knowledge. Please leave your comments there. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Category:Articles unintentionally citing publications with errata has 3 articles with erratas that need to be double-checked to make sure the material cited still matches what the paper concludes. They're all the same publication article, I believe. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Two grammatical numbers:
The word "errata" is plural. I've never seen "erratas" before. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Should False position method be moved to Method of false position (the latter currently redirects to the former)? See Talk:False position method#Name of article. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
An attention should be paid to some of drafts created (and deleted) at this meetup. -— Taku ( talk) 05:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Looing at articles in Category:Mathematical constants, many (like Apéry's constant) have ad hoc pseudo infoboxes. I think someone should create a Template:Infobox mathematical constant to standardize use (like {{ Infobox mathematical statement}} and {{ Infobox mathematics function}} ). – Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Does anybody know an authoritative style guide? A user claims that there should be a “blank” between the function symbol and left parenthesis in f(x)—specifically, the user pushed for U+0020—although I suspect a mild trolling. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 13:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I like to have a blank between the "ln" and the "(2)", but I would not have reverted you if that was the only change you made, which is expressing a personal preference in an obviously good-faith way, and which you seem to have intentionally misrepresented. If anyone is trolling here, it is you. -- JBL ( talk) 14:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's what's standard and what's not:
If you write \ln 2 or \ln2 you get a space between ln and 2 that's the same in both cases, and if you write \ln(2) then the space to the right of ln is smaller. The third example among the four above is coded as \text{ln}2, and that does not have context-dependent spacing. The fourth example is coded as ln\,(2). The same thing happens with \exp and \sin and other things. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Jarble is adding a lot of URLs to our references ("adding links to references using Google Scholar"); and these URLs point to Google Book "digests" of occurrences of the given notion in the given book (rather than the whole book). Is it a good idea? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
This journal is indexed in Scopus and zbMATH, which will be enough to pass WP:NJOURNALS usually. If someone would like to shepherd this to mainspace, see WP:JWG for how to expand the article up to our standards. The indexing information can be found at [9]. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I recently created Codensity monad which was quickly tagged by Domdeparis with some curation tags including "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. The specific problem is: Verification of the sources and the content.". While I am not an expert in category theory, I would consider myself sufficiently qualified to simply remove the tag (because nothing, in my mind, is problematic about the verification here), but if someone else around would have a look, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 20:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Inline citations are added using either footnotes (long or short) or parenthetical references.. Your references are not inline though but are General references. Inline citations are preferable to these as stated in WP:CITETYPE
A general reference is a citation that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section. They are usually found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. They may also be listed in more developed articles as a supplement to inline citations.. I should have said that there are no inline citations in this article and they should be added.Hope this clears up the misunderstanding. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 22:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Here (I only noticed because I was pinged). XOR'easter ( talk) 14:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Someone might want to rescue Draft:Artin-Tits groups from languishing in draft state. It looks well-sourced and reasonably close to publishable to me (although the title should be Artin–Tits group with an en-dash and no plural, and it needs more wikilinks), but a request to publish it was declined by Theroadislong for the bogus reason of being "largely incomprehensible" (it is a technical subject that would not reasonably be expected to be comprehensible to non-mathematicians). — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I moved it from Artin-Tits groups to Artin–Tits groups and then from there to Artin–Tits group. I am uncertain whether that last move is right.
So far no other articles link to this new article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I am (enthusiastically) willing to work on merging "Artin groups" and "Artin-Tits groups", which by coincidence have been created almost simultaneously. I just need a few days, and I'll post a proposal. OK ? I am a specialist of this area of mathematics, and should be able to make something coherent. Patrick Dehornoy 15:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
PS. I enterely agree with the critics about the first draft of "Artin-Tits groups", of which I am the author. I am not yet very familiar with the editorial features of Wikipedia, but I should learn fast... Patrick Dehornoy 15:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I now posted a tentative version of the new, completed page merging "Artin group" and "Artin-Tits group". Please check and criticize. Patrick Dehornoy 19:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Recursive definition#(Aczel 1978:740ff). -- CiaPan ( talk) 16:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Any opinions of this edit? I wonder if there's a third way of phrasing the thing that's better. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The original creator of the article titled Artin–Tits group has told me that he merged it into Artin group. After that I moved it to Artin–Tits group. So two questions arise:
Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there the right place to answer these questions? (I am an old mathematician, but a newcomer on Wikipedia...).
About the title, there is no obvious answer. Artin-Tits groups are a vast subject, and many people work on them. More importantly, there are several classes of such groups, and several specialized subcommunities. "Artin-Tits groups" is more common in recent references. But an important subcommity, those working on "Right Angled Artin-Tits groups" ("RAAGs") uniformly use "right-angled Artin groups", and not "right-angled Artin-Tits groups". Ideally, the two names should be possible. What is the better solution for this situation?
About the content, your comment "The article mostly consists of a list of properties and results that does not seem entirely appropriate here too" is very interesting. This is precisely what I aimed at doing: it seems to me that the paper, as it stands, would be all I expect to learn about these groups if I were a newcomer in the subject, namely the state-of-the-art results which are considered important (top journals references). But you are a hugely qualified Wiki author, and I would like to know your opinion: what would be typically missing, or useless? As I intend to invest myself in writing on several subject of my expertise area, I am much willing to understand what is the exact aim and philosophy of Wiki (as far as mathematical subjects are concerned). Thank you very much for any comment....
A minor point: your talk page is wonderfully structured, with a summarized "abstract" presenting you. How could I do the same for me? Patrick Dehornoy 17:30, 8 August 2019 (GMT)
Insists that knows the only correct notation and the rest of the world the preceding version is “wrong”. Look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Quaternion&action=history&offset=2019081216&limit=9 and
talk:Quaternion #Exponential, logarithm, and power functions, please.
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 15:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Please look at these edits: Special:Contributions/Hanumantw; not vandalism, but... something strange? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 16:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
See recent history of factorial. An editor there insists that the constant function f(x)=1 is an example of a double exponential function and on using that example to change the statement that the factorial grows "slower than double exponential functions" to the overly-pedantic "slower than many double exponential functions e.g. (example)". I don't think this is an improvement, but additional opinions might be more helpful than my repeated reversion of these edits. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I was editing Talk:Axiom of union#Independence of the axiom of union. I had planned out what I wanted to say in my head and was rushing to get it committed to writing before I forgot it. As usual, there were times when I needed to look at another article to get the correct spelling or latex symbol. This time, I went to the Axiom of powerset to get the symbol for the powerset. I had to enter the editor to see the source of that article to get "\mathcal (P)". When I tried to back out of that edit and return to my original edit, it would not allow me to do so. Ultimately, I had to "resend" to escape and as a result I lost most of what I had already written. I cannot say in words just how discouraging this is. For several minutes I sat stunned, enervated, unable to do anything. Eventually, I forced myself to re-enter an approximation to what I had written before.
This is not the first time this has happened. It has happened several times before. But it is infrequent enough that I forget to take precautions against it. Is there some way to get this bug fixed? JRSpriggs ( talk) 01:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
This WPM talk page is on my watchlist, in the sense that I do see the corresponding blue star between "View history" and "More". And nevertheless it does not appear on my watchlist. This is a new phenomenon (the last week or two). Mostly, my watchlist looks as before; but some items are missing, I do not know why. If I click the blue star ("remove this page from your watchlist") and then click the (no more blue) start again (making it blue again), it helps; the page returns to my watchlist. But afterward it disappears again. Why so? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 06:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe not quite so. I just tried to click twice the star on Talk:Normal distribution (edited by me yesterday, and by a bot today); it did not help. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 06:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The empty square root generated as <math>\sqrt{\;}</math> is very badly aligned (I have found this in nth root). The reason seems that the alignment is done on the center of the argument and that the space character is viewed as a zero-height character placed at the bottom of the line. For having a normal alignment such as I have used <math>\sqrt{{~^~}^~\!\!}</math>. Do someone know a less weird method for a similar result? D.Lazard ( talk) 07:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
08:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Please see Talk:Convex_hull_algorithms#Lower_bound_on_computational_complexity -- GunterS ( talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
It is a pity that cocycle of a group action is not treated; neither in " Cocycle", nor in " Group action (mathematics)". See Talk:Cocycle#Cocycle of a group action. Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 08:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Are Pollard's rho algorithm for logarithms and Pollard's kangaroo algorithm about the same thing? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Is this a topic that deserves a separate article? Genus (mathematics)#Graph theory already covers the topic but a quick Google search shows the topic is of independent interest. (I admit I’m not a specialist on this area so the others might know better.) — Taku ( talk) 22:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Serendipity element and Lagrange element are not created. -- Sharouser ( talk) 14:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Yet another occasion arises whose understanding requires one to realize that the "LaTeX" we use here is (many would say "obviously") not actual LaTeX.
If the "LaTeX" code uses a hyphen, then the first form above is seen, with a minus sign rather than a hyphen.
The second form is with a minus sign enclosed in {curly braces} so the spacing appropriate when it is used as a binary operation symbol does not appear.
The third has this: \varepsilon\text{-}\delta. This causes an honest hyphen to appear.
The fourth has this: \varepsilon\text{--}\delta.
In our not-really-LaTeX system, this makes two hyphens appear. In genuine LaTeX, it would make an en-dash appear. In the non-TeX occurrences of this phrase in the article titled (ε, δ)-definition of limit, an en-dash is used.
Use of an actual en-dash in the not-really-LaTeX code results only in an error message.
Should we eschew our not-really-LaTeX software altogether for these occasions, or should we use one of the options above, or should we compromise and write
or should we do something else? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
<math>\varepsilon\text{–}\delta</math>
↦ .
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 18:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
$\varepsilon$--$\delta$is probably what I'd do in an actual LaTeX document, too. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The article titled Nonlocal operator begins like this:
In mathematics, a nonlocal operator is a mapping which maps functions on a topological space to functions, in such a way that the value of the output function at a given point cannot be determined solely from the values of the input function in any neighbourhood of any point. An example of a nonlocal operator is the Fourier transform.
Occasionally I think English-speaking mathematicians are not attentive enough to nuances of the use of the word any.
is not quite the same as
since in some contexts this might mean every number at the same time. But
means
Maybe this point is clearer if one thinks of the difference between
and
Now suppose you say
That is in danger of being read as
and hence as
so that a universal quantifier in the writer's mind becomes an existential quantifier in the reader's mind. Merely writing "every" instead of "any" at the outset is all it takes to obviate this hazard.
Thus "any" can be universal in some contexts ("Anyone can do that.") and existential in others ("There isn't any." or "If anyone can run a 50 meters in three seconds, it's Usain Bolt.") The contexts in which it becomes existential seem to be these:
How shall we apply this to the two occurrences of the word any in the passage quoted from Nonlocal operator? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem arose from WP:Articles for deletion/Square root of 10. What to do with the topic now, in light of the deletionist assault? Is a separate article warranted? If no separate, then my proposal, square root #Principal square roots of the positive integers, or something else? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 14:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
What occasion could there be to write "square root of integers" rather than "square roots of integers" or "square root of an integer"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Just a reminder about m:Wikimedia Community User Group Math, which any person who supports the group's goals is welcome to join. As of a few weeks ago, the group is one of the officially recognized m:affiliates of the Wikimedia Foundation. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 00:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a problem with the disambiguation required for Michael Roberts (mathematician) in the previous thread: the link to a dab page is clearly intended to refer to covariants of invariant theory. The problem is that I have not found any mention of such a covariant in English Wikepedia. Do someone has an idea for solving the problem?
Here is what I remember on this subject: Let be a generic form in n variables (that is, its coefficients are indeterminates). The group GL(n) acts on the form by linear changes of variables. The discriminant of a form in two variables is an invariant. An invariant of GL(n) (or of a subgroup) is a polynomial in the coefficients of the form. A covariant is a form in the same variables, with coefficients polynomials in the coefficient of the given form, which is similarly invariant. For example, an invariant is a covariant of degree 0.
What precedes is clearly not sufficient, even for a stub. Again, any idea? D.Lazard ( talk) 18:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been editing trigonometry to address some of the problems it had in its GA review. In particular, much of it was unsourced or OR. I've been going through and deleting unsourced assertions and adding sources to everything else.
There was a section marked with 'more sources needed'. This sections was the 'applications' section, which has largely been unchanged since at least 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Trigonometry&oldid=122379664
I was going through and sourcing each 'application' one at a time, when I found a book that had all of them:
This is a Springer book where the authors have just copied and pasted the Wikipedia section, rearranging a few items.
I'm not too concerned that the authors have plagiarized this. My real question, though, is, would it be appropriate to use this book as a source for the whole list (as I've done for now), or would it be better to find sources that aren't plagiarized from Wikipedia itself?
Brirush ( talk) 19:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I have collected another batch of articles containing math(s)-related links to DAB pages which would benefit from expert attention. Search for 'disam' in read mode, and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve one of these puzzles, post {{ done}} here.
Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 02:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
07:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I've been reworking Trigonometry, focusing on organization and on removing OR and adding sources.
The page still looks skimpy, however, and I feel that more could be added (maybe separate sections on the properties of the graphs, on inverse functions, and perhaps fourier series/analysis?). I've been looking at other pages for inspiration, but I found to my surprise that no 'branch of mathematics' is currently a GA or a FA. Algebra, calculus, etc. are all below GA quality, and have some of the same problems that trigonometry has.
So I wanted to get some consensus before acting. What should 'big topic' articles like this cover? Is there any thing that you feel is necessary or standard for such articles? Is there any particularly good article in a related field that could be used as a template or inspiration? Brirush ( talk) 02:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
03:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)I've now completed my revision of Trigonometry. In the process, I've added several figures and tables, and almost doubled the size of the entry. I've tried to be careful and check for errors, but I would appreciate it if someone would look it over for mistakes, especially stray sentences from copy-and-paste or errors in the tables. If you feel any additions or removals are inappropriate, I can revert them. Thanks for the advice given above, it was extremely helpful.
Edit: The article itself isn't complete. As mentioned by someone else, it could use an overview of spherical/hyperbolic geometry. I'm not too familiar with spherical trigonometry, so I didn't attempt it.
Brirush ( talk) 19:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The page numbers in a lot of the references in trigonometry are given as the first half of a range. Surely this doesn't mean that the entire rest of the book after that page number is the relevant part. Would ff. work better? XOR'easter ( talk) 18:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Chongkian: See Category talk:Ordinal numbers. Chongkian ( talk · contribs) removed the {{Maths banner}}. Apparently, he believes that {{WikiProject Numbers}} is sufficient. Is that appropriate?
I think that ordinals are relevant to Mathematics generally, not merely to the Numbers project. JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
77 is the shirt number of Joe Minor-Leaguer), improving navigation templates and promoting their existence. Three years ago, 1 was the title of the article about the year AD 1. Certes ( talk) 11:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi! The second sentence in this article in its current form seems to be somewhat mangled for me.
Maybe this rewriting could be adequate:
As I am not a professional, I would like to have an expert opinion before editing the article. Thank you in advance! -- 94.21.201.110 ( talk) 11:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Just why the initial letter in "hyperbolic" should be capital while that in "elliptic" is in lower case is unclear. Or to put it more bluntly, it shouldn't be. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to delete all portals. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion on the suggestion of splitting Cubic function into Cubic function and Cubic equation. Feedback is welcome. D.Lazard ( talk) 10:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
This discussion calls for experts, right? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 18:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
There are currently redirects from Minkowski curve, Minkowski island, Minkowski sausage, and Minkowski fractal which lead to the article " Fractal antenna". An image given as an example of a fractal antenna design is labelled as a "Minkowski Island". Currently the term is in bold because the redirects indicate that it is a topic. However, an article about a subspecies of doves should probably redirect to an article about doves and not to an article about bird-shaped objects. It would be beneficial if an appropriate article was created to explain the Minkowski fractal, or if the redirects led to an article which explained the Minkowski fractal. The image is titled File:6452553 Vicsek Fractal Antenna.png, which implies that "Minkowski island" is an alternate name for the Vicsek fractal. " Vicsek fractal" does mention that the boundary is a variant of the Koch snowflake, and the "Koch snowflake" article contains a quadratic variant of the Koch curve labelled as the 'Minkowski Sausage', so one or both of the articles "Vicsek fractal" and "Koch snowflake" should probably contain the explanation. Hyacinth ( talk) 04:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
See: Minkowski Sausage. Hyacinth ( talk) 21:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the Mathematics page doesn't appear on /info/en/?search=Category:Active_WikiProjects, which seems wrong. I'd fix it myself if I knew what I was doing, but I haven't edited a Wiki article before. Iyyl ( talk) 01:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been working on geometry, trying to add references for every controversial statement and expanding stubs. In describing the branches of geometry, I had added an image for each branch. Now, the images are too big and too many to be aligned correctly, even after I deleted my image for Convex Geometry and shrank the others. I could use some expert opinion on the image layout. I haven't finished my edits (I plan on going over the applications section, and adding congruence, similarity, area and volume to the 'main concepts' section), but they shouldn't involve as many images. Thanks! Brirush ( talk) 16:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Can someone give advice what software is useful for creating mathematical illustrations? I am currently working on fundamental group and would like to create some pictures illustrating some computations of pi_1's. For example, I would like to quickly illustrate the usage of the Seifert-van Kampen theoren by (schematically) drawing a genus 2 surface, and some loops on it, together with labelling and coloring the objects (so, nothing fancy). And of course the software should be free to use. Thanks for any advice. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)I noticed Morley-Wang-Xu element in the new article report. It looks like it needs some care; for example, there's a reference to a figure that doesn't exist. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
02:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Draft:R. E. Moore Prize, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:R. E. Moore Prize and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Draft:R. E. Moore Prize during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits) 12:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Statistics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Statistics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes ( talk) 13:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Someone created a new article titled Hysteretic model with no other articles linking to it. I added a link from Hysteresis to the new article. The new article begins with this sentence:
Hysteretic models may have a generalized displacement as input variable and a generalized force as output variable, or vice versa.
This is quite an extreme example of lack of context-setting at the outset, but I'm not sure how to phrase a better opening sentence. This is a very multidisciplinary subject. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Is this an original research or something in mainstream? I’m inclined to the former (and thus the deletion on the ground), but wondering what other editors think. —- Taku ( talk) 23:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I've proposed a change to improve rendering of {{
radic}}
(e.g. currently √3) to make the two lines meet. Input is requested at
Template talk:Radic#Appearance again before I make such a widely-seen change. Thanks. —[
AlanM1(
talk)]— 23:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey,
Even though I actually do have a masters, I find myself a bit out of my depth looking at the edit request at Talk:Ivan Fesenko#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2019. Can someone who knows more about number theory than I have a look over and assess it, so the XCP backlog can get cleared out? :) Sceptre ( talk) 21:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The article " Expected value" was of length 37 Kb on Aug 7, 2017. Then User:StrokeOfMidnight made hundred of edits; on Dec 3, 2017 the length was 69 Kb, and the article became full of detailed rigorous proofs. Less intensively this was continued till Sep 23, 2018 (74 Kb), and slowly till Aug 2019. On Sep 26, 2019 User:Iyerkri started intensive work on that article, and now its length is 56 Kb. On Oct 3, 2019 StrokeOfMidnight initiated a discussion with Iyerkri on the talk page there: Talk:Expected value#"Cleaning up" Basic Properties. Much earlier I voiced there some doubts towards StrokeOfMidnight (see Section "Expected value#Proving that X=0 (a.s.) when E|X|=0" there); I wrote that your writings tend to smell advanced math, which irritates the majority; we are not on a professional math wiki like EoM, and the expectation is of interest for many non-mathematicians, and proofs are generally unwelcome here (and by the way, on EoM as well), but did not convince StrokeOfMidnight, and did not insist. So... now I am still not sure... the article tends to oscillate between encyclopedic and textbook-ish... is anyone willing to look? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 21:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Recent edits to Involute and Curvature need attention of other eyes than mines. D.Lazard ( talk) 14:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
So I've got a question about body text describing a table. [I may have another question later]. I am trying to write it, but what I've written sounds clunky (especially the second sentence) Can anyone improve it? If you want to explain the data in a completely different way, that's OK too. Tks!
1940–41 | 1941–42 | 1942–43 | 1943–44 | 1944–45 |
---|---|---|---|---|
141,000 | 711,000 | 938,000 | 1,491,000 | 1,230,000 |
♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Time Period | 1940–41 | 1941–42 | 1942–43 | 1943–44 | 1944–45 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sales of occupancy holdings | 141,000 | 711,000 | 938,000 | 1,491,000 | 1,230,000 |
Percentage increase from 1940-1941 | 504% | 665% | 1057% | 872% |
I’ve exhausted my patience for this dispute for the day and so I’m seeking a third opinion here. — Jasper Deng (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Linearity of integration, Constant factor rule in integration, and Sum rule in integration have all been prodded. Someone who knows more than I about calculus pedagogy might want to evaluate whether they should be saved or let go. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
This looks like OR, spread across 64 different anonymous edits. Opinions welcome. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
What makes an integer sequence notable? Is an entry in OEIS or MathWorld enough? Specifically this is a question for the following articles:
but I suspect this to be the case for many other such articles on integer sequences on Wikipedia. They do not have references other than OEIS or MathWorld, if any at all, and are either stubs lacking content other than the information on OEIS or MathWorld, or articles filled with what seems to be original research not found in OEIS or MathWorld. Prova-nome ( talk) 04:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The article
MacCullagh ellipsoid survived a
deletion debate last year (at the time, I said that where there might be an argument for a merge-and-redirect, that can be decided at a later date
). It has since been moved to
MacCullagh ellipsoid and Galois axis, which seems to give
undue prominence to the "Galois axis" part, given that it appears to be the pet idea of
Semjon Adlaj, himself of uncertain wiki-notability, and not an established term. I may take a crack at sorting all this out myself, but perhaps someone would like to beat me to it.
XOR'easter (
talk) 23:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The IP/SPA edit-warring has continued on Galois axis and MacCullagh ellipsoid, so I have taken Galois axis to AfD to end the chance for future edit-warring. The activity has also spread to Tennis racket theorem, j-invariant, and WP:ANI#Please restore the stable version of MacCullagh ellipsoid and Galois axis. Attention appreciated. — MarkH21 ( talk) 15:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia has a better article on the topic de:Trägheitsellipsoid which seems to be related to inertial ellipsoid. It apparently the geometric location of all angular momenta corresponding to the same rotational energy. -- Salix alba ( talk): 19:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Very unfamiliar with how wikipedia works but this seems to be where to submit this. In this article, under the section "Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers", for the value of 10^51 sexdecillion, it instead says sedecillion. This also does not align with the "Standard dictionary numbers" section of the article with the proper spelling. Pnunya ( talk) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Currently, the page Dual-complex numbers redirects to Dual-complex number, but Talk:Dual-complex number redirects to Talk:Dual-complex numbers, not vice versa. Either the article and talk page should both be plural, or else, they should both be singular. JBW only moved the talk page back to the plural title, but not the article. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@ GeoffreyT2000, Joel B. Lewis, and MarkH21: It seems to me more natural to have "complex numbers", "real numbers", etc, but since, as JBL has pointed out, we have the singular forms, I have moved Dual-complex numbers back to Dual-complex number for consistency. And of course moving just the talk page was a mistake; thank you GeoffreyT2000 for pointing it out. JBW ( talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 12:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The current version of the former article links to the latter, with a note: "This notation has little to do with De Bruijn indices, but the name "De Bruijn notation" is often (erroneously) used to stand for it." I do not see how this can be correct - both are ways of representing lambda terms uniquely in terms of alpha-equality, and therefor identical. I'm considering removing this note. Airbornemihir ( talk) 11:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear mathematicians: Here's a draft article that is within the interest of this WikiProject. Perhaps someone who with knowledge of this field can take a look at it.— Anne Delong ( talk) 11:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
In the article
Infinity, there's a statement in the lead: "For example,
Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem uses the existence of very large infinite sets."
I don't really know anything about this stuff, and this struck me as rather surprising, so I went to look for more. However, nothing in the article talks about this, and nothing at the article on the proof seems to say anything about this either. I also couldn't find anything after a cursory search. So I really have no idea if this is a valid statement or not; I've tagged it with a {{
cn}}
for now, but if anyone happens to know more about this, please feel free to either set me right, or even excise the statement with extreme prejudice. Thanks, –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 02:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Normally, if we write one expression on top of a fraction line and another on the bottom, we evaluate both before dividing. This would yield an indeterminate form when both the numerator and denominator are functional integrals with infinite value. Yet the article on functional integrals states “Most functional integrals are actually infinite, but then the limit of the quotient of two related functional integrals can still be finite”. Huh?
The topic overall needs love. It’s way too hand-way right now.— Jasper Deng (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe not controversial but I have made a proposal for the move in the title at Talk:Glossary of Lie algebras. —- Taku ( talk) 04:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. There is a possibility that I will be banned in a next day or 2 for an indefinite or definite period of time (see the very last section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata).
So, it would be nice if some other editors can watch out for non-constructive edits (in good faith or not) to the draft pages listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages. Also, in the thread, there is a proposal that drafts started by me over a year ago should be moved out of the draftspace. Since they are not my drafts, it would be natural to put them as subpages to the project page. If some other editors think this is a good idea, please go ahead and do. (I will not be able to do that myself because of the ban.) —- Taku ( talk) 23:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
When/if banned, I will also try to publish some error fixes (e.g., typos) at my talkpage that should be made to articles in Wikipedia. -- Taku ( talk) 10:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The article titled Classification of manifolds says some manifolds are geometrizable and some are not, and the article titled Geometrization conjecture seems to suggest that that means a manifold admits a "geometric structure". The concept is not defined in either article, and Geometric structure redirects to an article in which that term appears once, without a definition, and the word geometrizable occurs twice, also without a definition. Can someone put a definition at some appropriate place in those articles? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Can someone else take a look at the lead of Infinity? It's gone through several changes recently and it's a balancing act between being technically correct and being common language. I suppose I lean farther towards being technically correct than towards using common language, since I think that the common language surrounding "infinity" is often be misleading (e.g. "it cannot be counted or measured even in principle").
More eyes are always welcome. — MarkH21 ( talk) 23:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This is about common language. It is therefore nonsensical to try introducing mathematical accuracy. "Number" without link would be fine except that it may be confusing for people knowing of infinite numbers. So I put "common number", but I will be fine if "common" is removed. On the other hand, I am strongly against linking.D.Lazard ( talk) 23:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This is an announcement that I have created an alternative account of mine: User:Math-drafts to move some of old drafts in the [[Draft:]] namespace to the subpages of that user page. While I am in control of the account, the draft pages in that user page are meant to belong to the community and all the editors should feel free to edit them as fit (including moving to mainspace or even deleting them). This alternative account itself will never make an edit.
Please let me know if there is any issue. —- Taku ( talk) 09:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
23:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Folks here may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 10#Template:Mabs. – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 19:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
For your consideration: the new article Dubner's conjecture. The Dubner in question is Harvey Dubner, the subject of an old (2007) but weakly referenced biography. Do appropriate sources exist? -- JBL ( talk) 16:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
See discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1#MR numbers not rendering properly. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I have been writing the article Draft:Structural Ramsey theory, and have just submitted it for review. I have done my best to give a complete account, and provide adequate context and references. I would appreciate if anyone could give feedback and/or review.
-- Jordan Mitchell Barrett ( talk) 09:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
11:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)