Serendipity element and Lagrange element are not created. -- Sharouser ( talk) 14:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Yet another occasion arises whose understanding requires one to realize that the "LaTeX" we use here is (many would say "obviously") not actual LaTeX.
If the "LaTeX" code uses a hyphen, then the first form above is seen, with a minus sign rather than a hyphen.
The second form is with a minus sign enclosed in {curly braces} so the spacing appropriate when it is used as a binary operation symbol does not appear.
The third has this: \varepsilon\text{-}\delta. This causes an honest hyphen to appear.
The fourth has this: \varepsilon\text{--}\delta.
In our not-really-LaTeX system, this makes two hyphens appear. In genuine LaTeX, it would make an en-dash appear. In the non-TeX occurrences of this phrase in the article titled (ε, δ)-definition of limit, an en-dash is used.
Use of an actual en-dash in the not-really-LaTeX code results only in an error message.
Should we eschew our not-really-LaTeX software altogether for these occasions, or should we use one of the options above, or should we compromise and write
or should we do something else? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
<math>\varepsilon\text{–}\delta</math>
↦ .
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 18:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
$\varepsilon$--$\delta$is probably what I'd do in an actual LaTeX document, too. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The article titled Nonlocal operator begins like this:
In mathematics, a nonlocal operator is a mapping which maps functions on a topological space to functions, in such a way that the value of the output function at a given point cannot be determined solely from the values of the input function in any neighbourhood of any point. An example of a nonlocal operator is the Fourier transform.
Occasionally I think English-speaking mathematicians are not attentive enough to nuances of the use of the word any.
is not quite the same as
since in some contexts this might mean every number at the same time. But
means
Maybe this point is clearer if one thinks of the difference between
and
Now suppose you say
That is in danger of being read as
and hence as
so that a universal quantifier in the writer's mind becomes an existential quantifier in the reader's mind. Merely writing "every" instead of "any" at the outset is all it takes to obviate this hazard.
Thus "any" can be universal in some contexts ("Anyone can do that.") and existential in others ("There isn't any." or "If anyone can run a 50 meters in three seconds, it's Usain Bolt.") The contexts in which it becomes existential seem to be these:
How shall we apply this to the two occurrences of the word any in the passage quoted from Nonlocal operator? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem arose from WP:Articles for deletion/Square root of 10. What to do with the topic now, in light of the deletionist assault? Is a separate article warranted? If no separate, then my proposal, square root #Principal square roots of the positive integers, or something else? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 14:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
What occasion could there be to write "square root of integers" rather than "square roots of integers" or "square root of an integer"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Just a reminder about m:Wikimedia Community User Group Math, which any person who supports the group's goals is welcome to join. As of a few weeks ago, the group is one of the officially recognized m:affiliates of the Wikimedia Foundation. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 00:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a problem with the disambiguation required for Michael Roberts (mathematician) in the previous thread: the link to a dab page is clearly intended to refer to covariants of invariant theory. The problem is that I have not found any mention of such a covariant in English Wikepedia. Do someone has an idea for solving the problem?
Here is what I remember on this subject: Let be a generic form in n variables (that is, its coefficients are indeterminates). The group GL(n) acts on the form by linear changes of variables. The discriminant of a form in two variables is an invariant. An invariant of GL(n) (or of a subgroup) is a polynomial in the coefficients of the form. A covariant is a form in the same variables, with coefficients polynomials in the coefficient of the given form, which is similarly invariant. For example, an invariant is a covariant of degree 0.
What precedes is clearly not sufficient, even for a stub. Again, any idea? D.Lazard ( talk) 18:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been editing trigonometry to address some of the problems it had in its GA review. In particular, much of it was unsourced or OR. I've been going through and deleting unsourced assertions and adding sources to everything else.
There was a section marked with 'more sources needed'. This sections was the 'applications' section, which has largely been unchanged since at least 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Trigonometry&oldid=122379664
I was going through and sourcing each 'application' one at a time, when I found a book that had all of them:
This is a Springer book where the authors have just copied and pasted the Wikipedia section, rearranging a few items.
I'm not too concerned that the authors have plagiarized this. My real question, though, is, would it be appropriate to use this book as a source for the whole list (as I've done for now), or would it be better to find sources that aren't plagiarized from Wikipedia itself?
Brirush ( talk) 19:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I have collected another batch of articles containing math(s)-related links to DAB pages which would benefit from expert attention. Search for 'disam' in read mode, and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve one of these puzzles, post {{ done}} here.
Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 02:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
07:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I've been reworking Trigonometry, focusing on organization and on removing OR and adding sources.
The page still looks skimpy, however, and I feel that more could be added (maybe separate sections on the properties of the graphs, on inverse functions, and perhaps fourier series/analysis?). I've been looking at other pages for inspiration, but I found to my surprise that no 'branch of mathematics' is currently a GA or a FA. Algebra, calculus, etc. are all below GA quality, and have some of the same problems that trigonometry has.
So I wanted to get some consensus before acting. What should 'big topic' articles like this cover? Is there any thing that you feel is necessary or standard for such articles? Is there any particularly good article in a related field that could be used as a template or inspiration? Brirush ( talk) 02:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
03:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)I've now completed my revision of Trigonometry. In the process, I've added several figures and tables, and almost doubled the size of the entry. I've tried to be careful and check for errors, but I would appreciate it if someone would look it over for mistakes, especially stray sentences from copy-and-paste or errors in the tables. If you feel any additions or removals are inappropriate, I can revert them. Thanks for the advice given above, it was extremely helpful.
Edit: The article itself isn't complete. As mentioned by someone else, it could use an overview of spherical/hyperbolic geometry. I'm not too familiar with spherical trigonometry, so I didn't attempt it.
Brirush ( talk) 19:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The page numbers in a lot of the references in trigonometry are given as the first half of a range. Surely this doesn't mean that the entire rest of the book after that page number is the relevant part. Would ff. work better? XOR'easter ( talk) 18:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Chongkian: See Category talk:Ordinal numbers. Chongkian ( talk · contribs) removed the {{Maths banner}}. Apparently, he believes that {{WikiProject Numbers}} is sufficient. Is that appropriate?
I think that ordinals are relevant to Mathematics generally, not merely to the Numbers project. JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
77 is the shirt number of Joe Minor-Leaguer), improving navigation templates and promoting their existence. Three years ago, 1 was the title of the article about the year AD 1. Certes ( talk) 11:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi! The second sentence in this article in its current form seems to be somewhat mangled for me.
Maybe this rewriting could be adequate:
As I am not a professional, I would like to have an expert opinion before editing the article. Thank you in advance! -- 94.21.201.110 ( talk) 11:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Just why the initial letter in "hyperbolic" should be capital while that in "elliptic" is in lower case is unclear. Or to put it more bluntly, it shouldn't be. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to delete all portals. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion on the suggestion of splitting Cubic function into Cubic function and Cubic equation. Feedback is welcome. D.Lazard ( talk) 10:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
This discussion calls for experts, right? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 18:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
There are currently redirects from Minkowski curve, Minkowski island, Minkowski sausage, and Minkowski fractal which lead to the article " Fractal antenna". An image given as an example of a fractal antenna design is labelled as a "Minkowski Island". Currently the term is in bold because the redirects indicate that it is a topic. However, an article about a subspecies of doves should probably redirect to an article about doves and not to an article about bird-shaped objects. It would be beneficial if an appropriate article was created to explain the Minkowski fractal, or if the redirects led to an article which explained the Minkowski fractal. The image is titled File:6452553 Vicsek Fractal Antenna.png, which implies that "Minkowski island" is an alternate name for the Vicsek fractal. " Vicsek fractal" does mention that the boundary is a variant of the Koch snowflake, and the "Koch snowflake" article contains a quadratic variant of the Koch curve labelled as the 'Minkowski Sausage', so one or both of the articles "Vicsek fractal" and "Koch snowflake" should probably contain the explanation. Hyacinth ( talk) 04:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
See: Minkowski Sausage. Hyacinth ( talk) 21:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the Mathematics page doesn't appear on /info/en/?search=Category:Active_WikiProjects, which seems wrong. I'd fix it myself if I knew what I was doing, but I haven't edited a Wiki article before. Iyyl ( talk) 01:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been working on geometry, trying to add references for every controversial statement and expanding stubs. In describing the branches of geometry, I had added an image for each branch. Now, the images are too big and too many to be aligned correctly, even after I deleted my image for Convex Geometry and shrank the others. I could use some expert opinion on the image layout. I haven't finished my edits (I plan on going over the applications section, and adding congruence, similarity, area and volume to the 'main concepts' section), but they shouldn't involve as many images. Thanks! Brirush ( talk) 16:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Can someone give advice what software is useful for creating mathematical illustrations? I am currently working on fundamental group and would like to create some pictures illustrating some computations of pi_1's. For example, I would like to quickly illustrate the usage of the Seifert-van Kampen theoren by (schematically) drawing a genus 2 surface, and some loops on it, together with labelling and coloring the objects (so, nothing fancy). And of course the software should be free to use. Thanks for any advice. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Serendipity element and Lagrange element are not created. -- Sharouser ( talk) 14:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Yet another occasion arises whose understanding requires one to realize that the "LaTeX" we use here is (many would say "obviously") not actual LaTeX.
If the "LaTeX" code uses a hyphen, then the first form above is seen, with a minus sign rather than a hyphen.
The second form is with a minus sign enclosed in {curly braces} so the spacing appropriate when it is used as a binary operation symbol does not appear.
The third has this: \varepsilon\text{-}\delta. This causes an honest hyphen to appear.
The fourth has this: \varepsilon\text{--}\delta.
In our not-really-LaTeX system, this makes two hyphens appear. In genuine LaTeX, it would make an en-dash appear. In the non-TeX occurrences of this phrase in the article titled (ε, δ)-definition of limit, an en-dash is used.
Use of an actual en-dash in the not-really-LaTeX code results only in an error message.
Should we eschew our not-really-LaTeX software altogether for these occasions, or should we use one of the options above, or should we compromise and write
or should we do something else? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
<math>\varepsilon\text{–}\delta</math>
↦ .
Incnis Mrsi (
talk) 18:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
$\varepsilon$--$\delta$is probably what I'd do in an actual LaTeX document, too. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The article titled Nonlocal operator begins like this:
In mathematics, a nonlocal operator is a mapping which maps functions on a topological space to functions, in such a way that the value of the output function at a given point cannot be determined solely from the values of the input function in any neighbourhood of any point. An example of a nonlocal operator is the Fourier transform.
Occasionally I think English-speaking mathematicians are not attentive enough to nuances of the use of the word any.
is not quite the same as
since in some contexts this might mean every number at the same time. But
means
Maybe this point is clearer if one thinks of the difference between
and
Now suppose you say
That is in danger of being read as
and hence as
so that a universal quantifier in the writer's mind becomes an existential quantifier in the reader's mind. Merely writing "every" instead of "any" at the outset is all it takes to obviate this hazard.
Thus "any" can be universal in some contexts ("Anyone can do that.") and existential in others ("There isn't any." or "If anyone can run a 50 meters in three seconds, it's Usain Bolt.") The contexts in which it becomes existential seem to be these:
How shall we apply this to the two occurrences of the word any in the passage quoted from Nonlocal operator? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem arose from WP:Articles for deletion/Square root of 10. What to do with the topic now, in light of the deletionist assault? Is a separate article warranted? If no separate, then my proposal, square root #Principal square roots of the positive integers, or something else? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 14:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
What occasion could there be to write "square root of integers" rather than "square roots of integers" or "square root of an integer"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Just a reminder about m:Wikimedia Community User Group Math, which any person who supports the group's goals is welcome to join. As of a few weeks ago, the group is one of the officially recognized m:affiliates of the Wikimedia Foundation. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 00:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a problem with the disambiguation required for Michael Roberts (mathematician) in the previous thread: the link to a dab page is clearly intended to refer to covariants of invariant theory. The problem is that I have not found any mention of such a covariant in English Wikepedia. Do someone has an idea for solving the problem?
Here is what I remember on this subject: Let be a generic form in n variables (that is, its coefficients are indeterminates). The group GL(n) acts on the form by linear changes of variables. The discriminant of a form in two variables is an invariant. An invariant of GL(n) (or of a subgroup) is a polynomial in the coefficients of the form. A covariant is a form in the same variables, with coefficients polynomials in the coefficient of the given form, which is similarly invariant. For example, an invariant is a covariant of degree 0.
What precedes is clearly not sufficient, even for a stub. Again, any idea? D.Lazard ( talk) 18:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been editing trigonometry to address some of the problems it had in its GA review. In particular, much of it was unsourced or OR. I've been going through and deleting unsourced assertions and adding sources to everything else.
There was a section marked with 'more sources needed'. This sections was the 'applications' section, which has largely been unchanged since at least 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Trigonometry&oldid=122379664
I was going through and sourcing each 'application' one at a time, when I found a book that had all of them:
This is a Springer book where the authors have just copied and pasted the Wikipedia section, rearranging a few items.
I'm not too concerned that the authors have plagiarized this. My real question, though, is, would it be appropriate to use this book as a source for the whole list (as I've done for now), or would it be better to find sources that aren't plagiarized from Wikipedia itself?
Brirush ( talk) 19:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I have collected another batch of articles containing math(s)-related links to DAB pages which would benefit from expert attention. Search for 'disam' in read mode, and for '{{d' in edit mode; and if you solve one of these puzzles, post {{ done}} here.
Thanks in advance, Narky Blert ( talk) 02:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
07:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I've been reworking Trigonometry, focusing on organization and on removing OR and adding sources.
The page still looks skimpy, however, and I feel that more could be added (maybe separate sections on the properties of the graphs, on inverse functions, and perhaps fourier series/analysis?). I've been looking at other pages for inspiration, but I found to my surprise that no 'branch of mathematics' is currently a GA or a FA. Algebra, calculus, etc. are all below GA quality, and have some of the same problems that trigonometry has.
So I wanted to get some consensus before acting. What should 'big topic' articles like this cover? Is there any thing that you feel is necessary or standard for such articles? Is there any particularly good article in a related field that could be used as a template or inspiration? Brirush ( talk) 02:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
03:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)I've now completed my revision of Trigonometry. In the process, I've added several figures and tables, and almost doubled the size of the entry. I've tried to be careful and check for errors, but I would appreciate it if someone would look it over for mistakes, especially stray sentences from copy-and-paste or errors in the tables. If you feel any additions or removals are inappropriate, I can revert them. Thanks for the advice given above, it was extremely helpful.
Edit: The article itself isn't complete. As mentioned by someone else, it could use an overview of spherical/hyperbolic geometry. I'm not too familiar with spherical trigonometry, so I didn't attempt it.
Brirush ( talk) 19:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The page numbers in a lot of the references in trigonometry are given as the first half of a range. Surely this doesn't mean that the entire rest of the book after that page number is the relevant part. Would ff. work better? XOR'easter ( talk) 18:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Chongkian: See Category talk:Ordinal numbers. Chongkian ( talk · contribs) removed the {{Maths banner}}. Apparently, he believes that {{WikiProject Numbers}} is sufficient. Is that appropriate?
I think that ordinals are relevant to Mathematics generally, not merely to the Numbers project. JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
77 is the shirt number of Joe Minor-Leaguer), improving navigation templates and promoting their existence. Three years ago, 1 was the title of the article about the year AD 1. Certes ( talk) 11:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi! The second sentence in this article in its current form seems to be somewhat mangled for me.
Maybe this rewriting could be adequate:
As I am not a professional, I would like to have an expert opinion before editing the article. Thank you in advance! -- 94.21.201.110 ( talk) 11:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Just why the initial letter in "hyperbolic" should be capital while that in "elliptic" is in lower case is unclear. Or to put it more bluntly, it shouldn't be. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to delete all portals. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion on the suggestion of splitting Cubic function into Cubic function and Cubic equation. Feedback is welcome. D.Lazard ( talk) 10:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
This discussion calls for experts, right? Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 18:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
There are currently redirects from Minkowski curve, Minkowski island, Minkowski sausage, and Minkowski fractal which lead to the article " Fractal antenna". An image given as an example of a fractal antenna design is labelled as a "Minkowski Island". Currently the term is in bold because the redirects indicate that it is a topic. However, an article about a subspecies of doves should probably redirect to an article about doves and not to an article about bird-shaped objects. It would be beneficial if an appropriate article was created to explain the Minkowski fractal, or if the redirects led to an article which explained the Minkowski fractal. The image is titled File:6452553 Vicsek Fractal Antenna.png, which implies that "Minkowski island" is an alternate name for the Vicsek fractal. " Vicsek fractal" does mention that the boundary is a variant of the Koch snowflake, and the "Koch snowflake" article contains a quadratic variant of the Koch curve labelled as the 'Minkowski Sausage', so one or both of the articles "Vicsek fractal" and "Koch snowflake" should probably contain the explanation. Hyacinth ( talk) 04:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
See: Minkowski Sausage. Hyacinth ( talk) 21:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that the Mathematics page doesn't appear on /info/en/?search=Category:Active_WikiProjects, which seems wrong. I'd fix it myself if I knew what I was doing, but I haven't edited a Wiki article before. Iyyl ( talk) 01:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been working on geometry, trying to add references for every controversial statement and expanding stubs. In describing the branches of geometry, I had added an image for each branch. Now, the images are too big and too many to be aligned correctly, even after I deleted my image for Convex Geometry and shrank the others. I could use some expert opinion on the image layout. I haven't finished my edits (I plan on going over the applications section, and adding congruence, similarity, area and volume to the 'main concepts' section), but they shouldn't involve as many images. Thanks! Brirush ( talk) 16:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Can someone give advice what software is useful for creating mathematical illustrations? I am currently working on fundamental group and would like to create some pictures illustrating some computations of pi_1's. For example, I would like to quickly illustrate the usage of the Seifert-van Kampen theoren by (schematically) drawing a genus 2 surface, and some loops on it, together with labelling and coloring the objects (so, nothing fancy). And of course the software should be free to use. Thanks for any advice. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)