Hello, I am an AfC reviewer and recently (some time ago) I denied Draft: Q-Gaussian due to an article on Q-Gaussian already existing. However, today, the editor who created the article posted on my talk page saying that the two deals with different subjects. So can someone who has familiarity with math/stats take a look at this and see if they do talk about different things? Thanks, Taewangkorea ( talk) 17:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)I am working on the draft Draft:Markov constant (Diophantine approximation). It was declined 10 days ago, and I changed (quite a lot of) wording. However, I asked something else at the Teahouse and the people still think my article is too technical. So can anyone kindly help me to improve my draft? 數神 ( talk) 06:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Can anyone help me fix any issues (if there really are) and/or review it for me (if possible)? 數神 ( talk) 06:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, @ Zaunlen: and I are proposing to merge the articles Fraïssé's theorem and Age (model theory) into one, due to their similar scope, brevity and overlap in content. We'd appreciate any participation in the discussion here. Cheers, -- Jordan Mitchell Barrett ( talk) 05:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I am interested in writing an article on Mirror Descent, but I have never written or edited an article on wikipedia before. I have a draft of the article on my personal machine. Additionally I am unsure whether or not this material is better suited to the computer science wikiproject, since this is my background. I'm a little overwhelmed & I would appreciate any advice or pointers to resources. What is the typical pipeline for joining and participating in established wikiprojects - i.e. this one or one of the CS ones. Should I copy my draft into my sandbox and ask for reviewers before publishing? Thanks - Orange3xchicken ( talk) 18:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I want to know whether the section Proth prime of Proth number can become an independent article. I read the list for requested articles and the entry Payam number (in number theory) is just not notable enough; instead, it fits in such an article called “ Proth prime”. The question is, is “Proth prime” notable itself? Please help me. I found a few sources on this in the original article, but JUST a few. Please help me. 數神, the Lord of Math ( Prove me wrong; My contributions to the world in numbers) 10:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Our article titled Probability begins with this:
That's a really bad opening sentence. Probably I'll come back to it soon, but maybe others can improve this before that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Intuitively, probability is a measure quantifying the likelihood that events will occur. D.Lazard ( talk) 21:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Probability is a numerical way of describing how common or likely a given event is.(I do not understand how this is supposed to be more technical than what exists, nor why it does not cover both senses of probability in the article.) -- JBL ( talk) 01:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Probability is a numerical description of how common or likely a given event is.— MarkH21 talk 03:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Probability is a numerical description of how common, likely or plausible a given event is? XOR'easter ( talk) 15:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I think probability is an undefinable primitive. You may be able to give people an idea of what it is by examples, but it cannot be explained by any simpler concepts. If that is not sufficiently apparent from the attempts to define it classically, then consider that to be strictly correct one would need to define it in a quantum mechanical way as something like the trace of the product of the probability density matrix of the observer and a projection matrix representing the event in question. But then what are these things? No one knows. We can only postulate their existence. JRSpriggs ( talk) 20:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The definitions that speak of how common or frequent an event is ignore things like "The probability that the mass of the planet Saturn is between [this amount] and [this amount] is 0.85." That is a different way of using the mathematics of probability than the one that says the probability of getting a "1" when a "fair" die is thrown is 1/6. The question of when to use which point of view involves things other than mathematics, including the problem of inductive scientific inference. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
First off, I'm sorry if this isn't the correct place to ask this. I haven't contributed to Wikipedia yet except for the most minor of changes. Here is my problem:
In all sources cited in the article Natural number object, this concept is called a natural numbers object (which also makes more sense, since the object is not meant to represent a natural number in an arbitrary category, but the set of natural numbers itself). Still the article coherently uses the variation of the name lacking the plural. Of course one can change every instance of this in the text itself, but would it be possible to change the name of the article to the correct spelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnampfissimo ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a perennial discussion here, but if someone in the know could weigh in regarding this template editing request, I would be grateful. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Is there a meaningful distinction between the subjects of these two articles? -- JBL ( talk) 16:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed a bunch of edits to niche mathematical articles from IPv6 addresses, presumably the same editor. The edits are mostly adding wikilinks, and a lot of them seem reasonable. What I'm a bit concerned about is that many of them add a wikilink to mathematics in the lead sentence.
My view, which of course others may have their own opinions about, is that it is inappropriate to link extremely general articles from extremely technical, specific ones. Links in an early sentence giving context should go "one level up" in generality, not all the way to the root article for the field. My rationale is that an editor who has arrived of her own volition at a highly technical mathematical article already knows that it's about mathematics, and is unlikely at that point to want to read our most general article on math.
The IPv6 addresses keep changing, and I doubt that an editor doing this sort of general gnomery goes back to check the subsequent history of the article, so I have no reliable way to contact the editor to express my concern.
Suggestions welcome. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Hello WikiProject Mathematics! I'm one of the authors of the draft article on GraphBLAS. It's akin to the BLAS, but for graph algorithms and operations in the language of linear algebra. It's been stuck in the review queue for a while, so I was wondering if I could recruit some help in 1) Improving the article and/or 2) Getting it approved and out of draft. Thank you so much for your help! -- ScottKolo ( talk) 21:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Members of this WikiProject may be interesed in what I have posted at Talk:Matrix multiplication#German article and Manual of Style.
The short version is that I think that the article could be greatly improved by looking at the German Wikipedia and MOS:MATH.
I suspect this may also be true of many other maths articles.
Yaris678 ( talk) 22:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I didn't get any feedback on the merger, so I went ahead and created the merged article as a draft, and submitted it for review. Please find the new article at Draft:Fraïssé limit. -- Jordan Mitchell Barrett ( talk) 23:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
"In geometry, an apeirogon ... is a generalized polygon with a countably infinite number of sides.[1] It can be considered as the limit of an n-sided polygon as n approaches infinity. The interior of a linear apeirogon can be defined by a direction order of vertices, and defining half the plane as the interior." ( Apeirogon, the lead). Do you understand this? I do not. Does it mean that apeirogon is a polygon whose number of sides is the apeironumber? Should this number be mentioned in the "Infinity" article? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 06:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
regular polygons in the Euclidean 3-space E3 are of one of the following types: (i) convex polygons; (ii) star polygons; (iii) the apeirogon; (iv) zig-zag polygons; (v) skew polygons (prismatic and antiprismatic) (vi) helical polygons.
If S is a translation we have the limiting case where p becomes infinite: a sequence of equal segments of one line, the apeirogon(here S is a group acting on a point).
A regular apeirogon is either a partition of the Euclidean line E1 into infinitely many equal-length segments or an infinite polygon inscribed in a horocycle or in the absolute circle of the hyperbolic plane. A regular pseudogon is a partition of the hyperbolic line H1 into segments of length 2λ.
Thanks. Here's another related few articles if anyone can do some more cleaning up. It seems that none of the sources actually use "apeiro-" to describe these objects: Skew apeirohedron, Apeirogonal prism, Apeirogonal antiprism. All of the literature that I could find just use the word "polygon" or "infinite polygon" (or "polyhedra", etc.) instead. — MarkH21 talk 11:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
For anyone interested, I'm proposing to
subst: all current uses of {{
Pi}}
. Please see
Template talk:Pi#Substing all uses for more information or if you have any comments. Thanks, –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
15:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
In Recamán's sequence, the section on computational complexity says that it is and gives a reference. This is because the program uses an inefficient way to tell if a term has appeared before. Otherwise it is , but I don't have a reference for that. Does anyone know of a reference?
Secondly, how could 10230 terms be calculated? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't read the comments to the reference about complexity, but they discuss it in the comments. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I made a blog post anyway, not because I have any intention of adding it to the article myself (I don't) but because I was curious: [2]. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I am very puzzled seeing this discussion. What could it mean at all, to calculate 10230 terms of whatever? Say, just of the sequence 1,2,3,...? Am I very naive? It seems to me, to calculate something means at least to do some physical process (related to it). But all I know about our physical universe convince me that 10230 physical processes is beyond anything we can imagine (the more so, fulfill). Unless, of course, a quantum computation is meant... I assume it is not (otherwise I have other bunch of questions). Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 11:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Consult Orders of magnitude (length), Orders of magnitude (time) and consider Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, the article Semisimple representation is nominated at DYK for the main page, but reviewers are having difficulty verifying it because of a lot of advanced math in it. If anyone from this project could look over the article and weigh in here it would be really appreciated. Kingsif ( talk) 17:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I posted the following at the Bertrand paradox (probability) article this morning, after finding what I believe to be a violation of one or more WP guidelines/policies. Because the observation fits a much broader pattern in the Wikiproject Maths area, where proofs, arguments, and other presentations routinely appear without source, I decided to present the same content here, to stimulate a broader (if ultimately futile) discussion. There, I wrote:
How precisely are the six unsourced distribution graphs and the unsourced closing paragraph of the "Bertrand's formulation of the problem" section not violations of WP:OR and WP:VERIFY? I understand, for the erudition of its members, that Wikiproject Mathematics is given great latitude. But is this not egregious, to ignore and present our own research on the matter (presuming we are not reproducing that of another, and so plagiarising)?
I would note in addition to the legalistic argument—that we are a confederation held together by a commonly agreed upon set of rules, and so only as strong, in the end, as we are willing to adhere to them—there is a very practical argument in favour of presentation from source rather than ones original research or formulation of an argument. It is, that original work is overly dependent on the author, and that at an encyclopedia managed on a volunteer basis, such a dependence is impractical. Every editor/reader query, "What was meant by... ?" is either managed by a trip to the source cited, or by a post-and-wait episode for the author (or their supporters) to reply to. The former is our way, the latter is not, and is an entirely impractical way for this encyclopedia to be maintained.
Following this with a request for an eventual reply. I ask the same here. Cheers, and happy holiday. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E5E5:B1AE:733F:DB51 ( talk) 16:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Centered pentachoric number#What number is this?; I'd like help determining if this unsourced out-of-the-way article belongs in Wikipedia or in {{ figurate numbers}}, where I ran across it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This comes primarily from the discussions over at Talk:Equaliser (mathematics), but ought to apply more generally to mathematics articles on WIkipedia. Is there a default English variant for mathematics articles, whether it is American English, British English, or otherwise, or does it not matter? If there isn't, should there be one for consistency reasons? 73.168.5.183 ( talk) 05:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
A COI user has been edit-warring to add a huge and grandiosely-worded section on a new, non-notable, and uncited heuristic in a dubious journal to our article on graph coloring. It could help for more project editors to pay attention to the article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
novel,
reset this "state of the art",
subtle, etc. It reads like the overselling in a failed grant proposal. It is, perhaps unsurprisingly, a copyvio. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Can someone (with the necessary rights / experience) help out and perform this move, please? Thanks, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 21:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to the Lagarias book to check the appropriateness of these two edits? -- JBL ( talk) 03:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I suspect somebody was trying to make fun of the quote and decided to play a little prank with it. While probably true, it’s quite obvious that the quote is from the Collatz conjecture article (even the reference’s title is the 3x+1 problem). -- 37KZ ( talk) 17:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I am an AfC reviewer and recently (some time ago) I denied Draft: Q-Gaussian due to an article on Q-Gaussian already existing. However, today, the editor who created the article posted on my talk page saying that the two deals with different subjects. So can someone who has familiarity with math/stats take a look at this and see if they do talk about different things? Thanks, Taewangkorea ( talk) 17:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)I am working on the draft Draft:Markov constant (Diophantine approximation). It was declined 10 days ago, and I changed (quite a lot of) wording. However, I asked something else at the Teahouse and the people still think my article is too technical. So can anyone kindly help me to improve my draft? 數神 ( talk) 06:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Can anyone help me fix any issues (if there really are) and/or review it for me (if possible)? 數神 ( talk) 06:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, @ Zaunlen: and I are proposing to merge the articles Fraïssé's theorem and Age (model theory) into one, due to their similar scope, brevity and overlap in content. We'd appreciate any participation in the discussion here. Cheers, -- Jordan Mitchell Barrett ( talk) 05:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I am interested in writing an article on Mirror Descent, but I have never written or edited an article on wikipedia before. I have a draft of the article on my personal machine. Additionally I am unsure whether or not this material is better suited to the computer science wikiproject, since this is my background. I'm a little overwhelmed & I would appreciate any advice or pointers to resources. What is the typical pipeline for joining and participating in established wikiprojects - i.e. this one or one of the CS ones. Should I copy my draft into my sandbox and ask for reviewers before publishing? Thanks - Orange3xchicken ( talk) 18:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I want to know whether the section Proth prime of Proth number can become an independent article. I read the list for requested articles and the entry Payam number (in number theory) is just not notable enough; instead, it fits in such an article called “ Proth prime”. The question is, is “Proth prime” notable itself? Please help me. I found a few sources on this in the original article, but JUST a few. Please help me. 數神, the Lord of Math ( Prove me wrong; My contributions to the world in numbers) 10:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Our article titled Probability begins with this:
That's a really bad opening sentence. Probably I'll come back to it soon, but maybe others can improve this before that. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Intuitively, probability is a measure quantifying the likelihood that events will occur. D.Lazard ( talk) 21:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Probability is a numerical way of describing how common or likely a given event is.(I do not understand how this is supposed to be more technical than what exists, nor why it does not cover both senses of probability in the article.) -- JBL ( talk) 01:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Probability is a numerical description of how common or likely a given event is.— MarkH21 talk 03:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Probability is a numerical description of how common, likely or plausible a given event is? XOR'easter ( talk) 15:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I think probability is an undefinable primitive. You may be able to give people an idea of what it is by examples, but it cannot be explained by any simpler concepts. If that is not sufficiently apparent from the attempts to define it classically, then consider that to be strictly correct one would need to define it in a quantum mechanical way as something like the trace of the product of the probability density matrix of the observer and a projection matrix representing the event in question. But then what are these things? No one knows. We can only postulate their existence. JRSpriggs ( talk) 20:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The definitions that speak of how common or frequent an event is ignore things like "The probability that the mass of the planet Saturn is between [this amount] and [this amount] is 0.85." That is a different way of using the mathematics of probability than the one that says the probability of getting a "1" when a "fair" die is thrown is 1/6. The question of when to use which point of view involves things other than mathematics, including the problem of inductive scientific inference. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
First off, I'm sorry if this isn't the correct place to ask this. I haven't contributed to Wikipedia yet except for the most minor of changes. Here is my problem:
In all sources cited in the article Natural number object, this concept is called a natural numbers object (which also makes more sense, since the object is not meant to represent a natural number in an arbitrary category, but the set of natural numbers itself). Still the article coherently uses the variation of the name lacking the plural. Of course one can change every instance of this in the text itself, but would it be possible to change the name of the article to the correct spelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnampfissimo ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a perennial discussion here, but if someone in the know could weigh in regarding this template editing request, I would be grateful. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Is there a meaningful distinction between the subjects of these two articles? -- JBL ( talk) 16:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed a bunch of edits to niche mathematical articles from IPv6 addresses, presumably the same editor. The edits are mostly adding wikilinks, and a lot of them seem reasonable. What I'm a bit concerned about is that many of them add a wikilink to mathematics in the lead sentence.
My view, which of course others may have their own opinions about, is that it is inappropriate to link extremely general articles from extremely technical, specific ones. Links in an early sentence giving context should go "one level up" in generality, not all the way to the root article for the field. My rationale is that an editor who has arrived of her own volition at a highly technical mathematical article already knows that it's about mathematics, and is unlikely at that point to want to read our most general article on math.
The IPv6 addresses keep changing, and I doubt that an editor doing this sort of general gnomery goes back to check the subsequent history of the article, so I have no reliable way to contact the editor to express my concern.
Suggestions welcome. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Hello WikiProject Mathematics! I'm one of the authors of the draft article on GraphBLAS. It's akin to the BLAS, but for graph algorithms and operations in the language of linear algebra. It's been stuck in the review queue for a while, so I was wondering if I could recruit some help in 1) Improving the article and/or 2) Getting it approved and out of draft. Thank you so much for your help! -- ScottKolo ( talk) 21:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Members of this WikiProject may be interesed in what I have posted at Talk:Matrix multiplication#German article and Manual of Style.
The short version is that I think that the article could be greatly improved by looking at the German Wikipedia and MOS:MATH.
I suspect this may also be true of many other maths articles.
Yaris678 ( talk) 22:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I didn't get any feedback on the merger, so I went ahead and created the merged article as a draft, and submitted it for review. Please find the new article at Draft:Fraïssé limit. -- Jordan Mitchell Barrett ( talk) 23:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
"In geometry, an apeirogon ... is a generalized polygon with a countably infinite number of sides.[1] It can be considered as the limit of an n-sided polygon as n approaches infinity. The interior of a linear apeirogon can be defined by a direction order of vertices, and defining half the plane as the interior." ( Apeirogon, the lead). Do you understand this? I do not. Does it mean that apeirogon is a polygon whose number of sides is the apeironumber? Should this number be mentioned in the "Infinity" article? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 06:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
regular polygons in the Euclidean 3-space E3 are of one of the following types: (i) convex polygons; (ii) star polygons; (iii) the apeirogon; (iv) zig-zag polygons; (v) skew polygons (prismatic and antiprismatic) (vi) helical polygons.
If S is a translation we have the limiting case where p becomes infinite: a sequence of equal segments of one line, the apeirogon(here S is a group acting on a point).
A regular apeirogon is either a partition of the Euclidean line E1 into infinitely many equal-length segments or an infinite polygon inscribed in a horocycle or in the absolute circle of the hyperbolic plane. A regular pseudogon is a partition of the hyperbolic line H1 into segments of length 2λ.
Thanks. Here's another related few articles if anyone can do some more cleaning up. It seems that none of the sources actually use "apeiro-" to describe these objects: Skew apeirohedron, Apeirogonal prism, Apeirogonal antiprism. All of the literature that I could find just use the word "polygon" or "infinite polygon" (or "polyhedra", etc.) instead. — MarkH21 talk 11:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
For anyone interested, I'm proposing to
subst: all current uses of {{
Pi}}
. Please see
Template talk:Pi#Substing all uses for more information or if you have any comments. Thanks, –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
15:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
In Recamán's sequence, the section on computational complexity says that it is and gives a reference. This is because the program uses an inefficient way to tell if a term has appeared before. Otherwise it is , but I don't have a reference for that. Does anyone know of a reference?
Secondly, how could 10230 terms be calculated? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't read the comments to the reference about complexity, but they discuss it in the comments. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I made a blog post anyway, not because I have any intention of adding it to the article myself (I don't) but because I was curious: [2]. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I am very puzzled seeing this discussion. What could it mean at all, to calculate 10230 terms of whatever? Say, just of the sequence 1,2,3,...? Am I very naive? It seems to me, to calculate something means at least to do some physical process (related to it). But all I know about our physical universe convince me that 10230 physical processes is beyond anything we can imagine (the more so, fulfill). Unless, of course, a quantum computation is meant... I assume it is not (otherwise I have other bunch of questions). Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 11:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Consult Orders of magnitude (length), Orders of magnitude (time) and consider Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 19:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, the article Semisimple representation is nominated at DYK for the main page, but reviewers are having difficulty verifying it because of a lot of advanced math in it. If anyone from this project could look over the article and weigh in here it would be really appreciated. Kingsif ( talk) 17:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I posted the following at the Bertrand paradox (probability) article this morning, after finding what I believe to be a violation of one or more WP guidelines/policies. Because the observation fits a much broader pattern in the Wikiproject Maths area, where proofs, arguments, and other presentations routinely appear without source, I decided to present the same content here, to stimulate a broader (if ultimately futile) discussion. There, I wrote:
How precisely are the six unsourced distribution graphs and the unsourced closing paragraph of the "Bertrand's formulation of the problem" section not violations of WP:OR and WP:VERIFY? I understand, for the erudition of its members, that Wikiproject Mathematics is given great latitude. But is this not egregious, to ignore and present our own research on the matter (presuming we are not reproducing that of another, and so plagiarising)?
I would note in addition to the legalistic argument—that we are a confederation held together by a commonly agreed upon set of rules, and so only as strong, in the end, as we are willing to adhere to them—there is a very practical argument in favour of presentation from source rather than ones original research or formulation of an argument. It is, that original work is overly dependent on the author, and that at an encyclopedia managed on a volunteer basis, such a dependence is impractical. Every editor/reader query, "What was meant by... ?" is either managed by a trip to the source cited, or by a post-and-wait episode for the author (or their supporters) to reply to. The former is our way, the latter is not, and is an entirely impractical way for this encyclopedia to be maintained.
Following this with a request for an eventual reply. I ask the same here. Cheers, and happy holiday. 2601:246:C700:9B0:E5E5:B1AE:733F:DB51 ( talk) 16:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Centered pentachoric number#What number is this?; I'd like help determining if this unsourced out-of-the-way article belongs in Wikipedia or in {{ figurate numbers}}, where I ran across it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This comes primarily from the discussions over at Talk:Equaliser (mathematics), but ought to apply more generally to mathematics articles on WIkipedia. Is there a default English variant for mathematics articles, whether it is American English, British English, or otherwise, or does it not matter? If there isn't, should there be one for consistency reasons? 73.168.5.183 ( talk) 05:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
A COI user has been edit-warring to add a huge and grandiosely-worded section on a new, non-notable, and uncited heuristic in a dubious journal to our article on graph coloring. It could help for more project editors to pay attention to the article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
novel,
reset this "state of the art",
subtle, etc. It reads like the overselling in a failed grant proposal. It is, perhaps unsurprisingly, a copyvio. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Can someone (with the necessary rights / experience) help out and perform this move, please? Thanks, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 21:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to the Lagarias book to check the appropriateness of these two edits? -- JBL ( talk) 03:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I suspect somebody was trying to make fun of the quote and decided to play a little prank with it. While probably true, it’s quite obvious that the quote is from the Collatz conjecture article (even the reference’s title is the 3x+1 problem). -- 37KZ ( talk) 17:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)