Greetings, fellow appreciators of mathematics.
@ Ebony Jackson: Enumeration reducibility is a requested article in the Wikipedia:Logic page, I am looking to hear the opinions of others on this article I am now proposing. Has it been discussed in the past? Is it deserving of its own article, or should it be merged with other studies of reducibility relations at reduction (recursion theory)? It is also mentioned in Kleene's recursion theorem. Thanks. User:Colourfulskier 23:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
An IP has recently added links to the same brand-new arXiv preprint to Landau's problems and Legendre's conjecture. Could someone who knows something about the area check if this is legit or spam? (Apologies for not properly looking at it myself.) -- JBL ( talk) 21:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
At Big O notation, I feel that the logo at upper right with an image containing is confusing readers into thinking that the standard notation is , whereas Donald Knuth in The Art of Computer Programming and just about everyone else for decades have denoted it . (There are exceptions, but I am guessing that they are being influenced by Wikipedia rather than the other way around.) Can someone help by fixing that logo to use an ordinary ? It should be italicized, as usual for letters in math mode, but not calligraphic. Thank you in advance, Ebony Jackson ( talk) 00:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
O( ), ~(without the quotation marks). D.Lazard ( talk) 11:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Anyone who edits Wikipedia's articles on polyhedra and tiling knows that they are a disaster, because they have mostly been totally overrun by huge colorful tables, repeated across many articles, of barely-relevant images on vaguely-related topics, largely consisting of unsourced original research or with generic sources that are the same for each article and do not support the actual content, added by User:Tomruen. In the last few days I have been working on cleanup of one of these articles, Cairo pentagonal tiling, by cutting out much of Ruen's cruft from this version (barely 3k of mostly-unsourced text, references that do not adequately source the text, no clear distinction among different variations of the tiling, and gallery after gallery of 56 images) to this version (cut back to 2k of text but without the original research, and only 6 relevant images), to this version (expanded to 75k of properly-sourced and relevant content, with 12 images). Now Tom is edit-warring to blow up the article by expanding image tables again, adding material that is not source-based and factually incorrect (for instance adding a classification of types of tiling as "type 2" and "type 4" that incorrectly classifies the basketweave tiling as only being one of those two types), reverting whenever his edits are questioned, and calling those edits "improvements". More attention from additional editors who care more about mathematical content and sourcing and less about papering the walls with pretty pictures would be helpful. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Since Tom's changes to David's big fix of the article have been relatively small, I'd say this so far is more of an edit scuffle than a war. Tomruen: can I suggest you back off, let David finish his work on the article, and then in the light of that we can talk about any changes he made that you think are real losses? David has a good track record into raising up articles to meet the good article criteria, so I think it is best to see what he is happy with before you make what I guess will be relatively minor criticisms. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion here about a redirect that may be of interest. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
A bug report that has been there for a long time deals with improper rendering when the TeX control sequence \oint is used: the integral sign is too fat. But this screenshot from Macroscopic_quantum_phenomena#Superfluidity shows one instance—the last one seen here—rendered correctly although all of the others are too fat, and the TeX code is just that same control sequence in all instances. Why does it work right this one time but not others? Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I get occasional email notices seemingly purporting to report on specifics of work being done to fix this particular bug. But the bug is still there. Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
For Draft:Ashish K Srivastava, are his books sufficient to shown notability ? I do not consider myself qualified to determine this. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Suppose, I type the wave equation.
Now, I need to copy the equation as plain text.
Maybe, I will have to open the "Edit" page, and copy the LaTeX formula from there. But, what about Edit Protected Pages? Or for common wikipedia readers(who are not the part of the community)?
For example... I am providing a link to an external site
https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/prove-that-xy-c2-is-other-form-of-rectangular-hyperbola/
I propose Wikipedia to enable such a feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeker220 ( talk • contribs) 10:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
{\displaystyle {\frac {\partial ^{2}u}{\partial t^{2}}}\;=\;c^{2}\left({\frac {\partial ^{2}u}{\partial x_{1}^{2}}}+{\frac {\partial ^{2}u}{\partial x_{2}^{2}}}+\cdots +{\frac {\partial ^{2}u}{\partial x_{n}^{2}}}\right)}
. No additional software is needed. No switching to the edit window is needed. No special provision for protected pages is needed. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
17:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
\frac {\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} = c^2 \left( \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_1^2} + \frac {\partial^2 u}{\partial x_2^2} + \cdots + \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_n^2} \right)
People in fact learn how to write this kind of code by looking at what's here. It is better not to put lots of complications that serve no purpose into the code.
You can add the following script to your Special:MyPage/vector.js
jQuery( document ).ready( function( $ ) {
// Makes double clicking on a mathematical equation copy the source latex to the clipboard
$(".mwe-math-mathml-a11y").each(function(ind,ele) {
var parent = ele.parentElement;
$(parent).dblclick(function(ev) {
console.log(ev.delegateTarget);
var root = ev.delegateTarget;
var latex = $(root).find("annotation").text();
var $temp = $("<input>")
$("body").append($temp);
$temp.val(latex).select();
document.execCommand("copy");
$temp.remove();
});
});
});
this allows you to copy the latex on a double click of the image.-- Salix alba ( talk): 12:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
A review of this draft is requested. Should it be accepted? If there is doubt about whether it should be accepted, then it should probably be accepted, because it will get more attention in article space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I was unable to remove this page from the list.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 14:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
<math>E\lor F</math>
is triggering the error category, but <math>\lor</math>
is fine apparently ... — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
15:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
If anyone wants to take a shot at reducing the massive publications lists at the student-advisor pair of category theorists Ross Street and Max Kelly that were added by an SPA, please do so. A WP:TNT & restart approach to the section might be more productive than reducing the list one-by-one. — MarkH21 talk 03:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
There is an IP contributor edit-warring at axiom to assert the rather grandiose claim that axioms are the starting point of "all reasoning". -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I added a reference to the lead sentence of Several complex variables and wrote Cartan.H, et al. When using et al, is it okay to have only one author name? thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 05:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't personally use Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics (does anyone?), but I did notice (as a consequence of [3]) that all the recent edits there have a self-promotional flare, with a large helping of math.GM. Consider deciding what to do about it my Christmas present to the project. -- JBL ( talk) 18:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Every request for an article on a mathematical topic must include a reliable source where the the topic is defined, and must specify the place in the source where the topic is defined, specially when the source is a book.With such a caveat, one could reduce dramatically the size of this list. D.Lazard ( talk) 21:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I've collected another batch of articles with math(s)-related links to DAB pages where expert attention would be welcome. Search for "disam" in read mode and for "{{d" in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{ dn}} tag and post {{ done}} here.
Thanks in advance, and Compliments of the Season. Narky Blert ( talk) 15:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Is Synergetics coordinates a real thing? The article fails to make an intelligible definition of its subject and appears to suggest that 3-space can be tiled with regular tetrahedra. -- JBL ( talk) 00:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking for opinions on what should happen with the following from Unit (ring theory)#Integers:
[[quadratic integer|{{math|'''Z'''[{{sfrac|1 + {{sqrt|5}} | 2}}]}}]]
, and in fact the unit group of this ring is infinite.which displays the following with a broken fraction:
The issue is reported at Template talk:Frac#Strange rendering bug in sfrac. It looks like the above worked correctly before {{ sfrac}} was converted by Izno to use Template:Screen reader-only/styles.css as part of WP:TemplateStyles which prefers css. I'm wondering whether fixing the problem in the template is desirable, or whether the expression should be shown differently. It seems likely that links with such complex piped wikitext will break. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
On the research section of John Milnor's page there are several paragraphs which, in my view, have nothing to do with Milnor's research. I removed them but they were added back again. Anybody else's input would be welcome Gumshoe2 ( talk) 20:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Greetings, fellow appreciators of mathematics.
@ Ebony Jackson: Enumeration reducibility is a requested article in the Wikipedia:Logic page, I am looking to hear the opinions of others on this article I am now proposing. Has it been discussed in the past? Is it deserving of its own article, or should it be merged with other studies of reducibility relations at reduction (recursion theory)? It is also mentioned in Kleene's recursion theorem. Thanks. User:Colourfulskier 23:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
An IP has recently added links to the same brand-new arXiv preprint to Landau's problems and Legendre's conjecture. Could someone who knows something about the area check if this is legit or spam? (Apologies for not properly looking at it myself.) -- JBL ( talk) 21:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
At Big O notation, I feel that the logo at upper right with an image containing is confusing readers into thinking that the standard notation is , whereas Donald Knuth in The Art of Computer Programming and just about everyone else for decades have denoted it . (There are exceptions, but I am guessing that they are being influenced by Wikipedia rather than the other way around.) Can someone help by fixing that logo to use an ordinary ? It should be italicized, as usual for letters in math mode, but not calligraphic. Thank you in advance, Ebony Jackson ( talk) 00:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
O( ), ~(without the quotation marks). D.Lazard ( talk) 11:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Anyone who edits Wikipedia's articles on polyhedra and tiling knows that they are a disaster, because they have mostly been totally overrun by huge colorful tables, repeated across many articles, of barely-relevant images on vaguely-related topics, largely consisting of unsourced original research or with generic sources that are the same for each article and do not support the actual content, added by User:Tomruen. In the last few days I have been working on cleanup of one of these articles, Cairo pentagonal tiling, by cutting out much of Ruen's cruft from this version (barely 3k of mostly-unsourced text, references that do not adequately source the text, no clear distinction among different variations of the tiling, and gallery after gallery of 56 images) to this version (cut back to 2k of text but without the original research, and only 6 relevant images), to this version (expanded to 75k of properly-sourced and relevant content, with 12 images). Now Tom is edit-warring to blow up the article by expanding image tables again, adding material that is not source-based and factually incorrect (for instance adding a classification of types of tiling as "type 2" and "type 4" that incorrectly classifies the basketweave tiling as only being one of those two types), reverting whenever his edits are questioned, and calling those edits "improvements". More attention from additional editors who care more about mathematical content and sourcing and less about papering the walls with pretty pictures would be helpful. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Since Tom's changes to David's big fix of the article have been relatively small, I'd say this so far is more of an edit scuffle than a war. Tomruen: can I suggest you back off, let David finish his work on the article, and then in the light of that we can talk about any changes he made that you think are real losses? David has a good track record into raising up articles to meet the good article criteria, so I think it is best to see what he is happy with before you make what I guess will be relatively minor criticisms. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion here about a redirect that may be of interest. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
A bug report that has been there for a long time deals with improper rendering when the TeX control sequence \oint is used: the integral sign is too fat. But this screenshot from Macroscopic_quantum_phenomena#Superfluidity shows one instance—the last one seen here—rendered correctly although all of the others are too fat, and the TeX code is just that same control sequence in all instances. Why does it work right this one time but not others? Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I get occasional email notices seemingly purporting to report on specifics of work being done to fix this particular bug. But the bug is still there. Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
For Draft:Ashish K Srivastava, are his books sufficient to shown notability ? I do not consider myself qualified to determine this. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Suppose, I type the wave equation.
Now, I need to copy the equation as plain text.
Maybe, I will have to open the "Edit" page, and copy the LaTeX formula from there. But, what about Edit Protected Pages? Or for common wikipedia readers(who are not the part of the community)?
For example... I am providing a link to an external site
https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/prove-that-xy-c2-is-other-form-of-rectangular-hyperbola/
I propose Wikipedia to enable such a feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeker220 ( talk • contribs) 10:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
{\displaystyle {\frac {\partial ^{2}u}{\partial t^{2}}}\;=\;c^{2}\left({\frac {\partial ^{2}u}{\partial x_{1}^{2}}}+{\frac {\partial ^{2}u}{\partial x_{2}^{2}}}+\cdots +{\frac {\partial ^{2}u}{\partial x_{n}^{2}}}\right)}
. No additional software is needed. No switching to the edit window is needed. No special provision for protected pages is needed. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
17:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
\frac {\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} = c^2 \left( \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_1^2} + \frac {\partial^2 u}{\partial x_2^2} + \cdots + \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x_n^2} \right)
People in fact learn how to write this kind of code by looking at what's here. It is better not to put lots of complications that serve no purpose into the code.
You can add the following script to your Special:MyPage/vector.js
jQuery( document ).ready( function( $ ) {
// Makes double clicking on a mathematical equation copy the source latex to the clipboard
$(".mwe-math-mathml-a11y").each(function(ind,ele) {
var parent = ele.parentElement;
$(parent).dblclick(function(ev) {
console.log(ev.delegateTarget);
var root = ev.delegateTarget;
var latex = $(root).find("annotation").text();
var $temp = $("<input>")
$("body").append($temp);
$temp.val(latex).select();
document.execCommand("copy");
$temp.remove();
});
});
});
this allows you to copy the latex on a double click of the image.-- Salix alba ( talk): 12:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
A review of this draft is requested. Should it be accepted? If there is doubt about whether it should be accepted, then it should probably be accepted, because it will get more attention in article space. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I was unable to remove this page from the list.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 14:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
<math>E\lor F</math>
is triggering the error category, but <math>\lor</math>
is fine apparently ... — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
15:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
If anyone wants to take a shot at reducing the massive publications lists at the student-advisor pair of category theorists Ross Street and Max Kelly that were added by an SPA, please do so. A WP:TNT & restart approach to the section might be more productive than reducing the list one-by-one. — MarkH21 talk 03:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
There is an IP contributor edit-warring at axiom to assert the rather grandiose claim that axioms are the starting point of "all reasoning". -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I added a reference to the lead sentence of Several complex variables and wrote Cartan.H, et al. When using et al, is it okay to have only one author name? thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 05:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't personally use Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics (does anyone?), but I did notice (as a consequence of [3]) that all the recent edits there have a self-promotional flare, with a large helping of math.GM. Consider deciding what to do about it my Christmas present to the project. -- JBL ( talk) 18:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Every request for an article on a mathematical topic must include a reliable source where the the topic is defined, and must specify the place in the source where the topic is defined, specially when the source is a book.With such a caveat, one could reduce dramatically the size of this list. D.Lazard ( talk) 21:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
I've collected another batch of articles with math(s)-related links to DAB pages where expert attention would be welcome. Search for "disam" in read mode and for "{{d" in edit mode; and if you solve any of these puzzles, remove the {{ dn}} tag and post {{ done}} here.
Thanks in advance, and Compliments of the Season. Narky Blert ( talk) 15:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Is Synergetics coordinates a real thing? The article fails to make an intelligible definition of its subject and appears to suggest that 3-space can be tiled with regular tetrahedra. -- JBL ( talk) 00:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm looking for opinions on what should happen with the following from Unit (ring theory)#Integers:
[[quadratic integer|{{math|'''Z'''[{{sfrac|1 + {{sqrt|5}} | 2}}]}}]]
, and in fact the unit group of this ring is infinite.which displays the following with a broken fraction:
The issue is reported at Template talk:Frac#Strange rendering bug in sfrac. It looks like the above worked correctly before {{ sfrac}} was converted by Izno to use Template:Screen reader-only/styles.css as part of WP:TemplateStyles which prefers css. I'm wondering whether fixing the problem in the template is desirable, or whether the expression should be shown differently. It seems likely that links with such complex piped wikitext will break. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
On the research section of John Milnor's page there are several paragraphs which, in my view, have nothing to do with Milnor's research. I removed them but they were added back again. Anybody else's input would be welcome Gumshoe2 ( talk) 20:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)