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)
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)