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)
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)