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)
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)