I noticed Morley-Wang-Xu element in the new article report. It looks like it needs some care; for example, there's a reference to a figure that doesn't exist. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
02:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Draft:R. E. Moore Prize, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:R. E. Moore Prize and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:R. E. Moore Prize during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 12:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Statistics 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:Statistics 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. Certes ( talk) 13:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Someone created a new article titled Hysteretic model with no other articles linking to it. I added a link from Hysteresis to the new article. The new article begins with this sentence:
Hysteretic models may have a generalized displacement as input variable and a generalized force as output variable, or vice versa.
This is quite an extreme example of lack of context-setting at the outset, but I'm not sure how to phrase a better opening sentence. This is a very multidisciplinary subject. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Is this an original research or something in mainstream? I’m inclined to the former (and thus the deletion on the ground), but wondering what other editors think. —- Taku ( talk) 23:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I've proposed a change to improve rendering of {{
radic}}
(e.g. currently √3) to make the two lines meet. Input is requested at
Template talk:Radic#Appearance again before I make such a widely-seen change. Thanks. —[
AlanM1(
talk)]— 23:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey,
Even though I actually do have a masters, I find myself a bit out of my depth looking at the edit request at Talk:Ivan Fesenko#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2019. Can someone who knows more about number theory than I have a look over and assess it, so the XCP backlog can get cleared out? :) Sceptre ( talk) 21:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The article " Expected value" was of length 37 Kb on Aug 7, 2017. Then User:StrokeOfMidnight made hundred of edits; on Dec 3, 2017 the length was 69 Kb, and the article became full of detailed rigorous proofs. Less intensively this was continued till Sep 23, 2018 (74 Kb), and slowly till Aug 2019. On Sep 26, 2019 User:Iyerkri started intensive work on that article, and now its length is 56 Kb. On Oct 3, 2019 StrokeOfMidnight initiated a discussion with Iyerkri on the talk page there: Talk:Expected value#"Cleaning up" Basic Properties. Much earlier I voiced there some doubts towards StrokeOfMidnight (see Section "Expected value#Proving that X=0 (a.s.) when E|X|=0" there); I wrote that your writings tend to smell advanced math, which irritates the majority; we are not on a professional math wiki like EoM, and the expectation is of interest for many non-mathematicians, and proofs are generally unwelcome here (and by the way, on EoM as well), but did not convince StrokeOfMidnight, and did not insist. So... now I am still not sure... the article tends to oscillate between encyclopedic and textbook-ish... is anyone willing to look? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 21:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Recent edits to Involute and Curvature need attention of other eyes than mines. D.Lazard ( talk) 14:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
So I've got a question about body text describing a table. [I may have another question later]. I am trying to write it, but what I've written sounds clunky (especially the second sentence) Can anyone improve it? If you want to explain the data in a completely different way, that's OK too. Tks!
1940–41 | 1941–42 | 1942–43 | 1943–44 | 1944–45 |
---|---|---|---|---|
141,000 | 711,000 | 938,000 | 1,491,000 | 1,230,000 |
♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Time Period | 1940–41 | 1941–42 | 1942–43 | 1943–44 | 1944–45 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sales of occupancy holdings | 141,000 | 711,000 | 938,000 | 1,491,000 | 1,230,000 |
Percentage increase from 1940-1941 | 504% | 665% | 1057% | 872% |
I’ve exhausted my patience for this dispute for the day and so I’m seeking a third opinion here. — Jasper Deng (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Linearity of integration, Constant factor rule in integration, and Sum rule in integration have all been prodded. Someone who knows more than I about calculus pedagogy might want to evaluate whether they should be saved or let go. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
This looks like OR, spread across 64 different anonymous edits. Opinions welcome. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
What makes an integer sequence notable? Is an entry in OEIS or MathWorld enough? Specifically this is a question for the following articles:
but I suspect this to be the case for many other such articles on integer sequences on Wikipedia. They do not have references other than OEIS or MathWorld, if any at all, and are either stubs lacking content other than the information on OEIS or MathWorld, or articles filled with what seems to be original research not found in OEIS or MathWorld. Prova-nome ( talk) 04:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The article
MacCullagh ellipsoid survived a
deletion debate last year (at the time, I said that where there might be an argument for a merge-and-redirect, that can be decided at a later date
). It has since been moved to
MacCullagh ellipsoid and Galois axis, which seems to give
undue prominence to the "Galois axis" part, given that it appears to be the pet idea of
Semjon Adlaj, himself of uncertain wiki-notability, and not an established term. I may take a crack at sorting all this out myself, but perhaps someone would like to beat me to it.
XOR'easter (
talk) 23:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The IP/SPA edit-warring has continued on Galois axis and MacCullagh ellipsoid, so I have taken Galois axis to AfD to end the chance for future edit-warring. The activity has also spread to Tennis racket theorem, j-invariant, and WP:ANI#Please restore the stable version of MacCullagh ellipsoid and Galois axis. Attention appreciated. — MarkH21 ( talk) 15:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia has a better article on the topic de:Trägheitsellipsoid which seems to be related to inertial ellipsoid. It apparently the geometric location of all angular momenta corresponding to the same rotational energy. -- Salix alba ( talk): 19:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Very unfamiliar with how wikipedia works but this seems to be where to submit this. In this article, under the section "Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers", for the value of 10^51 sexdecillion, it instead says sedecillion. This also does not align with the "Standard dictionary numbers" section of the article with the proper spelling. Pnunya ( talk) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Currently, the page Dual-complex numbers redirects to Dual-complex number, but Talk:Dual-complex number redirects to Talk:Dual-complex numbers, not vice versa. Either the article and talk page should both be plural, or else, they should both be singular. JBW only moved the talk page back to the plural title, but not the article. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@ GeoffreyT2000, Joel B. Lewis, and MarkH21: It seems to me more natural to have "complex numbers", "real numbers", etc, but since, as JBL has pointed out, we have the singular forms, I have moved Dual-complex numbers back to Dual-complex number for consistency. And of course moving just the talk page was a mistake; thank you GeoffreyT2000 for pointing it out. JBW ( talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 12:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The current version of the former article links to the latter, with a note: "This notation has little to do with De Bruijn indices, but the name "De Bruijn notation" is often (erroneously) used to stand for it." I do not see how this can be correct - both are ways of representing lambda terms uniquely in terms of alpha-equality, and therefor identical. I'm considering removing this note. Airbornemihir ( talk) 11:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear mathematicians: Here's a draft article that is within the interest of this WikiProject. Perhaps someone who with knowledge of this field can take a look at it.— Anne Delong ( talk) 11:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
In the article
Infinity, there's a statement in the lead: "For example,
Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem uses the existence of very large infinite sets."
I don't really know anything about this stuff, and this struck me as rather surprising, so I went to look for more. However, nothing in the article talks about this, and nothing at the article on the proof seems to say anything about this either. I also couldn't find anything after a cursory search. So I really have no idea if this is a valid statement or not; I've tagged it with a {{
cn}}
for now, but if anyone happens to know more about this, please feel free to either set me right, or even excise the statement with extreme prejudice. Thanks, –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 02:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Normally, if we write one expression on top of a fraction line and another on the bottom, we evaluate both before dividing. This would yield an indeterminate form when both the numerator and denominator are functional integrals with infinite value. Yet the article on functional integrals states “Most functional integrals are actually infinite, but then the limit of the quotient of two related functional integrals can still be finite”. Huh?
The topic overall needs love. It’s way too hand-way right now.— Jasper Deng (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe not controversial but I have made a proposal for the move in the title at Talk:Glossary of Lie algebras. —- Taku ( talk) 04:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. There is a possibility that I will be banned in a next day or 2 for an indefinite or definite period of time (see the very last section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata).
So, it would be nice if some other editors can watch out for non-constructive edits (in good faith or not) to the draft pages listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages. Also, in the thread, there is a proposal that drafts started by me over a year ago should be moved out of the draftspace. Since they are not my drafts, it would be natural to put them as subpages to the project page. If some other editors think this is a good idea, please go ahead and do. (I will not be able to do that myself because of the ban.) —- Taku ( talk) 23:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
When/if banned, I will also try to publish some error fixes (e.g., typos) at my talkpage that should be made to articles in Wikipedia. -- Taku ( talk) 10:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I noticed Morley-Wang-Xu element in the new article report. It looks like it needs some care; for example, there's a reference to a figure that doesn't exist. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
02:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Draft:R. E. Moore Prize, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:R. E. Moore Prize and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:R. E. Moore Prize during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 12:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Statistics 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:Statistics 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. Certes ( talk) 13:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Someone created a new article titled Hysteretic model with no other articles linking to it. I added a link from Hysteresis to the new article. The new article begins with this sentence:
Hysteretic models may have a generalized displacement as input variable and a generalized force as output variable, or vice versa.
This is quite an extreme example of lack of context-setting at the outset, but I'm not sure how to phrase a better opening sentence. This is a very multidisciplinary subject. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Is this an original research or something in mainstream? I’m inclined to the former (and thus the deletion on the ground), but wondering what other editors think. —- Taku ( talk) 23:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I've proposed a change to improve rendering of {{
radic}}
(e.g. currently √3) to make the two lines meet. Input is requested at
Template talk:Radic#Appearance again before I make such a widely-seen change. Thanks. —[
AlanM1(
talk)]— 23:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey,
Even though I actually do have a masters, I find myself a bit out of my depth looking at the edit request at Talk:Ivan Fesenko#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2019. Can someone who knows more about number theory than I have a look over and assess it, so the XCP backlog can get cleared out? :) Sceptre ( talk) 21:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The article " Expected value" was of length 37 Kb on Aug 7, 2017. Then User:StrokeOfMidnight made hundred of edits; on Dec 3, 2017 the length was 69 Kb, and the article became full of detailed rigorous proofs. Less intensively this was continued till Sep 23, 2018 (74 Kb), and slowly till Aug 2019. On Sep 26, 2019 User:Iyerkri started intensive work on that article, and now its length is 56 Kb. On Oct 3, 2019 StrokeOfMidnight initiated a discussion with Iyerkri on the talk page there: Talk:Expected value#"Cleaning up" Basic Properties. Much earlier I voiced there some doubts towards StrokeOfMidnight (see Section "Expected value#Proving that X=0 (a.s.) when E|X|=0" there); I wrote that your writings tend to smell advanced math, which irritates the majority; we are not on a professional math wiki like EoM, and the expectation is of interest for many non-mathematicians, and proofs are generally unwelcome here (and by the way, on EoM as well), but did not convince StrokeOfMidnight, and did not insist. So... now I am still not sure... the article tends to oscillate between encyclopedic and textbook-ish... is anyone willing to look? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 21:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Recent edits to Involute and Curvature need attention of other eyes than mines. D.Lazard ( talk) 14:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
So I've got a question about body text describing a table. [I may have another question later]. I am trying to write it, but what I've written sounds clunky (especially the second sentence) Can anyone improve it? If you want to explain the data in a completely different way, that's OK too. Tks!
1940–41 | 1941–42 | 1942–43 | 1943–44 | 1944–45 |
---|---|---|---|---|
141,000 | 711,000 | 938,000 | 1,491,000 | 1,230,000 |
♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Time Period | 1940–41 | 1941–42 | 1942–43 | 1943–44 | 1944–45 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sales of occupancy holdings | 141,000 | 711,000 | 938,000 | 1,491,000 | 1,230,000 |
Percentage increase from 1940-1941 | 504% | 665% | 1057% | 872% |
I’ve exhausted my patience for this dispute for the day and so I’m seeking a third opinion here. — Jasper Deng (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Linearity of integration, Constant factor rule in integration, and Sum rule in integration have all been prodded. Someone who knows more than I about calculus pedagogy might want to evaluate whether they should be saved or let go. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
This looks like OR, spread across 64 different anonymous edits. Opinions welcome. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
What makes an integer sequence notable? Is an entry in OEIS or MathWorld enough? Specifically this is a question for the following articles:
but I suspect this to be the case for many other such articles on integer sequences on Wikipedia. They do not have references other than OEIS or MathWorld, if any at all, and are either stubs lacking content other than the information on OEIS or MathWorld, or articles filled with what seems to be original research not found in OEIS or MathWorld. Prova-nome ( talk) 04:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The article
MacCullagh ellipsoid survived a
deletion debate last year (at the time, I said that where there might be an argument for a merge-and-redirect, that can be decided at a later date
). It has since been moved to
MacCullagh ellipsoid and Galois axis, which seems to give
undue prominence to the "Galois axis" part, given that it appears to be the pet idea of
Semjon Adlaj, himself of uncertain wiki-notability, and not an established term. I may take a crack at sorting all this out myself, but perhaps someone would like to beat me to it.
XOR'easter (
talk) 23:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
The IP/SPA edit-warring has continued on Galois axis and MacCullagh ellipsoid, so I have taken Galois axis to AfD to end the chance for future edit-warring. The activity has also spread to Tennis racket theorem, j-invariant, and WP:ANI#Please restore the stable version of MacCullagh ellipsoid and Galois axis. Attention appreciated. — MarkH21 ( talk) 15:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia has a better article on the topic de:Trägheitsellipsoid which seems to be related to inertial ellipsoid. It apparently the geometric location of all angular momenta corresponding to the same rotational energy. -- Salix alba ( talk): 19:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Very unfamiliar with how wikipedia works but this seems to be where to submit this. In this article, under the section "Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers", for the value of 10^51 sexdecillion, it instead says sedecillion. This also does not align with the "Standard dictionary numbers" section of the article with the proper spelling. Pnunya ( talk) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Currently, the page Dual-complex numbers redirects to Dual-complex number, but Talk:Dual-complex number redirects to Talk:Dual-complex numbers, not vice versa. Either the article and talk page should both be plural, or else, they should both be singular. JBW only moved the talk page back to the plural title, but not the article. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@ GeoffreyT2000, Joel B. Lewis, and MarkH21: It seems to me more natural to have "complex numbers", "real numbers", etc, but since, as JBL has pointed out, we have the singular forms, I have moved Dual-complex numbers back to Dual-complex number for consistency. And of course moving just the talk page was a mistake; thank you GeoffreyT2000 for pointing it out. JBW ( talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 12:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The current version of the former article links to the latter, with a note: "This notation has little to do with De Bruijn indices, but the name "De Bruijn notation" is often (erroneously) used to stand for it." I do not see how this can be correct - both are ways of representing lambda terms uniquely in terms of alpha-equality, and therefor identical. I'm considering removing this note. Airbornemihir ( talk) 11:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Dear mathematicians: Here's a draft article that is within the interest of this WikiProject. Perhaps someone who with knowledge of this field can take a look at it.— Anne Delong ( talk) 11:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
In the article
Infinity, there's a statement in the lead: "For example,
Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem uses the existence of very large infinite sets."
I don't really know anything about this stuff, and this struck me as rather surprising, so I went to look for more. However, nothing in the article talks about this, and nothing at the article on the proof seems to say anything about this either. I also couldn't find anything after a cursory search. So I really have no idea if this is a valid statement or not; I've tagged it with a {{
cn}}
for now, but if anyone happens to know more about this, please feel free to either set me right, or even excise the statement with extreme prejudice. Thanks, –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos) 02:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Normally, if we write one expression on top of a fraction line and another on the bottom, we evaluate both before dividing. This would yield an indeterminate form when both the numerator and denominator are functional integrals with infinite value. Yet the article on functional integrals states “Most functional integrals are actually infinite, but then the limit of the quotient of two related functional integrals can still be finite”. Huh?
The topic overall needs love. It’s way too hand-way right now.— Jasper Deng (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe not controversial but I have made a proposal for the move in the title at Talk:Glossary of Lie algebras. —- Taku ( talk) 04:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi all. There is a possibility that I will be banned in a next day or 2 for an indefinite or definite period of time (see the very last section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata).
So, it would be nice if some other editors can watch out for non-constructive edits (in good faith or not) to the draft pages listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages. Also, in the thread, there is a proposal that drafts started by me over a year ago should be moved out of the draftspace. Since they are not my drafts, it would be natural to put them as subpages to the project page. If some other editors think this is a good idea, please go ahead and do. (I will not be able to do that myself because of the ban.) —- Taku ( talk) 23:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
When/if banned, I will also try to publish some error fixes (e.g., typos) at my talkpage that should be made to articles in Wikipedia. -- Taku ( talk) 10:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)