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)
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)