This article is really technical, and kind of reads like an essay (e.g. "this article will..."). However, this is a notable topic, so I'd like someone good in group theory ( Lie algebras) to help me out. Eumat114 formerly TLOM ( Message) 05:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Categories such as Category:6-polytopes and Category:7-polytopes have a whole lot of plural titles, where singular would be the WP way per WP:PLURALS. Many (perhaps all) created by @ Tomruen: Is there any objection to a bulk fix back to singular? Dicklyon ( talk) 20:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Here are the articles I found (with queries like this): Rectified_5-cubes, Steric_7-cubes, Rectified_9-cubes, Runcic_6-cubes, Runcic_7-cubes, Runcic_5-cubes, Pentic_7-cubes, Truncated_5-cubes, Rectified_6-cubes, Rectified_8-cubes, Rectified_7-cubes, Truncated_7-cubes, Truncated_6-cubes, Cantellated_6-cubes, Hexic_7-cubes, Steric_6-cubes, Steric_5-cubes, Truncated_8-cubes, Runcinated_5-cubes, Cantellated_5-cubes, Rectified_10-cubes, Runcinated_6-cubes, Cantellated_7-cubes, Stericated_6-cubes, Runcinated_7-cubes, Stericated_5-cubes, Pentellated_6-cubes, Pentic_6-cubes, Stericated_7-cubes, Pentellated_7-cubes, Hexicated_7-cubes, Hexicated_8-simplexes, Rectified_6-simplexes, Pentellated_8-simplexes, Truncated_5-simplexes, Truncated_7-simplexes, Heptellated_8-simplexes, Truncated_6-simplexes, Cantellated_6-simplexes, Rectified_8-simplexes, Rectified_7-simplexes, Truncated_8-simplexes, Rectified_10-simplexes, Rectified_9-simplexes, Runcinated_5-simplexes, Runcinated_8-simplexes, Cantellated_5-simplexes, Stericated_8-simplexes, Cantellated_8-simplexes, Runcinated_6-simplexes, Cantellated_7-simplexes, Stericated_6-simplexes, Rectified_5-simplexes, Runcinated_7-simplexes, Stericated_5-simplexes, Pentellated_6-simplexes, Stericated_7-simplexes, Pentellated_7-simplexes, Hexicated_7-simplexes, Runcinated_6-orthoplexes , Rectified_5-orthoplexes , Cantellated_5-orthoplexes , Truncated_6-orthoplexes , Truncated_5-orthoplexes , Rectified_9-orthoplexes , Rectified_7-orthoplexes , Truncated_7-orthoplexes , Truncated_8-orthoplexes , Cantellated_7-orthoplexes , Rectified_6-orthoplexes , Rectified_8-orthoplexes , Cantellated_6-orthoplexes , Runcinated_5-orthoplexes , Pentellated_6-orthoplexes , Rectified_10-orthoplexes , Stericated_6-orthoplexes , Runcinated_7-orthoplexes , Stericated_7-orthoplexes , Hexicated_7-orthoplexes , Pentellated_7-orthoplexes . I don't see others besides cubes, simplexes, and othroplexes, but I may be overlooking some. Dicklyon ( talk) 19:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Please comment on my bot request at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Move_205_mathematics_pages_to_singular_title if you care about this. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Never mind, I canceled/reverted my bot request, as this seems not as simple as I thought, since the singular redirects to a specific member of the plural class article in many cases. I'd rather let the plurals slide than bother trying to find a better way to do it at this point. Carry on... Dicklyon ( talk) 04:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have started an MfD on a program that I don’t think is notable enough for Wikipedia (there are too many of programs like it). But that’s just my judgement and I invite editors who have opinions on the matter to the discussion. —- Taku ( talk) 07:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I have been having some disagreements with an editor at Unit circle (not a page that many here would have on their watchlists). He does not seem to be able to see the errors he has committed nor is he able to discuss the topic meaningfully. Extra eyes on the page would be appreciated and perhaps someone else can get through to him, as I seem to have failed.-- Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 19:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Could some expert in analysis have a look on this article recently created by Mgkrupa. I have some problems with it that may or may nor be caused by my lack of knowledge in analysis.
These are the questions about the article as a whole. Looking on the details, it seems that a lot of work is needed for making the article comprehensible. D.Lazard ( talk) 19:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why cap set needs to be separate from the new sort-of-article (really a proof masquerading as an article) Exponential bound on capsets? It's not like the main article is so overburdened with content that it needs WP:SUMMARY style. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
04:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
In April, Mgkrupa produced a number of stubs drawn from the Encyclopedia of general topology on minor definitions relating to openness: Preopen, Semi-preopen, Semi-open, Α-open, B-open, Δ-open, Θ-open (and maybe others that I haven't found). Each article consists of a one- or two-sentence definition, together with a statement of how it relates to the other definitions. I personally find it hard to imagine any of these ever becoming a real encyclopedia article; I tentatively propose that they be merged into a single article (maybe "list of openness properties"; better suggestions welcome), unless someone is very confident that there's lots of encyclopedic material waiting to be added to at least two of them. (If there's only encyclopedic content to be had on one of them, then I propose all the others be merged to that title.) Thoughts? -- JBL ( talk) 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I started a few days ago digging for information about the logarithm of quatnerions, and it's use. The page(s) here Wikipedia Quaternion Article, wikipedia Qatuernions and spactial rotations, barely mention them except the express the math of the operation.
Here is my test project, started to test this new-found knowledge, and other references at the bottom I've read. [1] https://github.com/d3x0r/STFRPhysics#frame-computation-using-dual-log-quaternions
To summarize quickly, given that the rotation quaternions input (or projected from natural-log mapping) is a unit vector, the conjugate and reciprocal are the same. This means that PQ = P with Q's rotation added. QP = Q with P's rotation subtracted. or PQ = PQ and QP = P/Q. The order of the operation in natural quaternion space as multiplication is represented in natural log-quaternion space as a subtraction instead of addition; that is instead of changing the order of the operands, just subtract instead of adding.
This can be quickly visualized in the complex number case, that A * B = the rotation of A + rotation of B. where B * A can also be seen as subtracting from 1 and getting the rotation of A minus the rotation of B.
The construction of a log-quaternion
// pass the same parameters of a direction normal and angle of rotation to make a log quaternion // ... without taking the log of a quaternion. function logQuaternion(theta, normal ) { return [ Math.log( theta ), normal.x*theta, normal.y * theta, normal.z * theta ] /* w,x,y,z */ }
It can be seen simply from the construction, that the angles of ln space are really simply the angles simultaneously around x, y and z axis. The exp() function takes
the angles specified and normalizes them to -1 to 1 when converting to a quaternion; collapsing any accumulated rotation information.
Now see, I would love to just come back to the above mentioned articles and see a nice section on normalizing the log-quaternion to prevent radical overflows; it can certainly be translated to a quaternion and back, and lose any overflow information.
I suspect, also, that any errors between the rotations of the two systems are the fault of working in quaternion unit-vector space which truncates partial overflows, that a later subtraction might bring back to 137 instead of -17.
The accumulators of a log-quaternion vector are basically a long tape of potential angles input, without being auto modulated with within range.
Plus. The 'multiplication' or 'application' of one rotation to another for summing through a chain is a simple 4-vector addition or subtraction; the application of a log-quaternion can be combined with its exp() operation and still be cheaper than a full translation with quaternion multiplication....
So; I can't fathom why this simple method isn't already the most prominent, and is instead relegated to a dark corner and the quote 'multiplication is not commutative'... Yes; I agree, the result of multiplication in quaternion space is not; and this is reflected in tangent space by subtracting instead of adding; which means that the operation in real space actually resembles division, and not a re-ordered multiplication.
D3x0r ( talk) 21:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
A new user has been changing our article on Simulated Annealing to state that it was developed by Martin Pincus in 1970, some 13 years before it is commonly understood to have been developed by Scott Kirkpatrick. More eyes would be appreciated - MrOllie ( talk) 19:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I think he has been of interest to members of this Wikiproject in the past. A new draft has been submitted to AfC. -- JBL ( talk) 12:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Please can a subject expert look at the remaining incoming links to disambiguation page Integral operator, and divert them to appropriate articles? Thanks, Certes ( talk) 01:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
For the interested, what should Π redirect to? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:African-American mathematicians has been nominated for deletion/upmerging. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 13#Subgroups of African-American scientists for the discussion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
In Normed vector space, the phrase "jointly continuous" is used (for addition and scalar multiplication) without definition nor link. I have found a definition of "joint continuity" of a multiplication in Topological algebra. Linking the phrase there would be possible, although the definition and the usage do not refer to the same operations. But ...
I have never encounter this phrase elsewhere. Is it notable? If yes, where should be defined for being the target of a redirect? If not, is there another term for it or should we simply remove "jointly", and link to Function of several real variables#Continuity and limit? D.Lazard ( talk) 18:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Would someone mind taking a look at List of mathematical constants to see if they agree with my reverts of a couple recent additions? I'm at 3RR, and so I'm stuck. Thanks, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 19:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Named numbersisn’t great either, since every number is effectively named under a loose interpretation of
named, but a strict interpretation excludes things like Natural logarithm of 2. — MarkH21 talk 23:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
List of named constants seems the best of the suggestions so far, to me. I agree that we should avoid the term "notable", since its Wikipedian definition isn't quite the same as its meaning elsewhere. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to notify the project of some RfD nominations for mathematical characters at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 24 I've started today. Currently, there is mostly a one-to-one discussion, which probably isn't that helpful. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 21:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Recently, Category:Field theory was speedily renamed/moved to Category:Field (mathematics). ( Field theory is a disambiguation page, and so the name of Category:Field theory is/was itself ambiguous.) However, to me the name Category:Field (mathematics) suggests a category collecting articles about specific fields, and I would prefer the name Category:Field theory (mathematics), to make it match with Category:Category theory, Category:Group theory, Category:Lattice theory, Category:Module theory, Category:Ring theory, Category:Semigroup theory and so on. Then again, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." What do others say? – Tea2min ( talk) 08:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Please, discuss at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 24#L2 norm about the best target for the redirect L2 norm. D.Lazard ( talk) 21:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Notable? -- JBL ( talk) 14:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
This article is really technical, and kind of reads like an essay (e.g. "this article will..."). However, this is a notable topic, so I'd like someone good in group theory ( Lie algebras) to help me out. Eumat114 formerly TLOM ( Message) 05:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Categories such as Category:6-polytopes and Category:7-polytopes have a whole lot of plural titles, where singular would be the WP way per WP:PLURALS. Many (perhaps all) created by @ Tomruen: Is there any objection to a bulk fix back to singular? Dicklyon ( talk) 20:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Here are the articles I found (with queries like this): Rectified_5-cubes, Steric_7-cubes, Rectified_9-cubes, Runcic_6-cubes, Runcic_7-cubes, Runcic_5-cubes, Pentic_7-cubes, Truncated_5-cubes, Rectified_6-cubes, Rectified_8-cubes, Rectified_7-cubes, Truncated_7-cubes, Truncated_6-cubes, Cantellated_6-cubes, Hexic_7-cubes, Steric_6-cubes, Steric_5-cubes, Truncated_8-cubes, Runcinated_5-cubes, Cantellated_5-cubes, Rectified_10-cubes, Runcinated_6-cubes, Cantellated_7-cubes, Stericated_6-cubes, Runcinated_7-cubes, Stericated_5-cubes, Pentellated_6-cubes, Pentic_6-cubes, Stericated_7-cubes, Pentellated_7-cubes, Hexicated_7-cubes, Hexicated_8-simplexes, Rectified_6-simplexes, Pentellated_8-simplexes, Truncated_5-simplexes, Truncated_7-simplexes, Heptellated_8-simplexes, Truncated_6-simplexes, Cantellated_6-simplexes, Rectified_8-simplexes, Rectified_7-simplexes, Truncated_8-simplexes, Rectified_10-simplexes, Rectified_9-simplexes, Runcinated_5-simplexes, Runcinated_8-simplexes, Cantellated_5-simplexes, Stericated_8-simplexes, Cantellated_8-simplexes, Runcinated_6-simplexes, Cantellated_7-simplexes, Stericated_6-simplexes, Rectified_5-simplexes, Runcinated_7-simplexes, Stericated_5-simplexes, Pentellated_6-simplexes, Stericated_7-simplexes, Pentellated_7-simplexes, Hexicated_7-simplexes, Runcinated_6-orthoplexes , Rectified_5-orthoplexes , Cantellated_5-orthoplexes , Truncated_6-orthoplexes , Truncated_5-orthoplexes , Rectified_9-orthoplexes , Rectified_7-orthoplexes , Truncated_7-orthoplexes , Truncated_8-orthoplexes , Cantellated_7-orthoplexes , Rectified_6-orthoplexes , Rectified_8-orthoplexes , Cantellated_6-orthoplexes , Runcinated_5-orthoplexes , Pentellated_6-orthoplexes , Rectified_10-orthoplexes , Stericated_6-orthoplexes , Runcinated_7-orthoplexes , Stericated_7-orthoplexes , Hexicated_7-orthoplexes , Pentellated_7-orthoplexes . I don't see others besides cubes, simplexes, and othroplexes, but I may be overlooking some. Dicklyon ( talk) 19:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Please comment on my bot request at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Move_205_mathematics_pages_to_singular_title if you care about this. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Never mind, I canceled/reverted my bot request, as this seems not as simple as I thought, since the singular redirects to a specific member of the plural class article in many cases. I'd rather let the plurals slide than bother trying to find a better way to do it at this point. Carry on... Dicklyon ( talk) 04:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have started an MfD on a program that I don’t think is notable enough for Wikipedia (there are too many of programs like it). But that’s just my judgement and I invite editors who have opinions on the matter to the discussion. —- Taku ( talk) 07:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I have been having some disagreements with an editor at Unit circle (not a page that many here would have on their watchlists). He does not seem to be able to see the errors he has committed nor is he able to discuss the topic meaningfully. Extra eyes on the page would be appreciated and perhaps someone else can get through to him, as I seem to have failed.-- Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 19:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Could some expert in analysis have a look on this article recently created by Mgkrupa. I have some problems with it that may or may nor be caused by my lack of knowledge in analysis.
These are the questions about the article as a whole. Looking on the details, it seems that a lot of work is needed for making the article comprehensible. D.Lazard ( talk) 19:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why cap set needs to be separate from the new sort-of-article (really a proof masquerading as an article) Exponential bound on capsets? It's not like the main article is so overburdened with content that it needs WP:SUMMARY style. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
04:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
In April, Mgkrupa produced a number of stubs drawn from the Encyclopedia of general topology on minor definitions relating to openness: Preopen, Semi-preopen, Semi-open, Α-open, B-open, Δ-open, Θ-open (and maybe others that I haven't found). Each article consists of a one- or two-sentence definition, together with a statement of how it relates to the other definitions. I personally find it hard to imagine any of these ever becoming a real encyclopedia article; I tentatively propose that they be merged into a single article (maybe "list of openness properties"; better suggestions welcome), unless someone is very confident that there's lots of encyclopedic material waiting to be added to at least two of them. (If there's only encyclopedic content to be had on one of them, then I propose all the others be merged to that title.) Thoughts? -- JBL ( talk) 16:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I started a few days ago digging for information about the logarithm of quatnerions, and it's use. The page(s) here Wikipedia Quaternion Article, wikipedia Qatuernions and spactial rotations, barely mention them except the express the math of the operation.
Here is my test project, started to test this new-found knowledge, and other references at the bottom I've read. [1] https://github.com/d3x0r/STFRPhysics#frame-computation-using-dual-log-quaternions
To summarize quickly, given that the rotation quaternions input (or projected from natural-log mapping) is a unit vector, the conjugate and reciprocal are the same. This means that PQ = P with Q's rotation added. QP = Q with P's rotation subtracted. or PQ = PQ and QP = P/Q. The order of the operation in natural quaternion space as multiplication is represented in natural log-quaternion space as a subtraction instead of addition; that is instead of changing the order of the operands, just subtract instead of adding.
This can be quickly visualized in the complex number case, that A * B = the rotation of A + rotation of B. where B * A can also be seen as subtracting from 1 and getting the rotation of A minus the rotation of B.
The construction of a log-quaternion
// pass the same parameters of a direction normal and angle of rotation to make a log quaternion // ... without taking the log of a quaternion. function logQuaternion(theta, normal ) { return [ Math.log( theta ), normal.x*theta, normal.y * theta, normal.z * theta ] /* w,x,y,z */ }
It can be seen simply from the construction, that the angles of ln space are really simply the angles simultaneously around x, y and z axis. The exp() function takes
the angles specified and normalizes them to -1 to 1 when converting to a quaternion; collapsing any accumulated rotation information.
Now see, I would love to just come back to the above mentioned articles and see a nice section on normalizing the log-quaternion to prevent radical overflows; it can certainly be translated to a quaternion and back, and lose any overflow information.
I suspect, also, that any errors between the rotations of the two systems are the fault of working in quaternion unit-vector space which truncates partial overflows, that a later subtraction might bring back to 137 instead of -17.
The accumulators of a log-quaternion vector are basically a long tape of potential angles input, without being auto modulated with within range.
Plus. The 'multiplication' or 'application' of one rotation to another for summing through a chain is a simple 4-vector addition or subtraction; the application of a log-quaternion can be combined with its exp() operation and still be cheaper than a full translation with quaternion multiplication....
So; I can't fathom why this simple method isn't already the most prominent, and is instead relegated to a dark corner and the quote 'multiplication is not commutative'... Yes; I agree, the result of multiplication in quaternion space is not; and this is reflected in tangent space by subtracting instead of adding; which means that the operation in real space actually resembles division, and not a re-ordered multiplication.
D3x0r ( talk) 21:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
A new user has been changing our article on Simulated Annealing to state that it was developed by Martin Pincus in 1970, some 13 years before it is commonly understood to have been developed by Scott Kirkpatrick. More eyes would be appreciated - MrOllie ( talk) 19:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I think he has been of interest to members of this Wikiproject in the past. A new draft has been submitted to AfC. -- JBL ( talk) 12:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Please can a subject expert look at the remaining incoming links to disambiguation page Integral operator, and divert them to appropriate articles? Thanks, Certes ( talk) 01:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
For the interested, what should Π redirect to? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Category:African-American mathematicians has been nominated for deletion/upmerging. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 13#Subgroups of African-American scientists for the discussion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
In Normed vector space, the phrase "jointly continuous" is used (for addition and scalar multiplication) without definition nor link. I have found a definition of "joint continuity" of a multiplication in Topological algebra. Linking the phrase there would be possible, although the definition and the usage do not refer to the same operations. But ...
I have never encounter this phrase elsewhere. Is it notable? If yes, where should be defined for being the target of a redirect? If not, is there another term for it or should we simply remove "jointly", and link to Function of several real variables#Continuity and limit? D.Lazard ( talk) 18:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Would someone mind taking a look at List of mathematical constants to see if they agree with my reverts of a couple recent additions? I'm at 3RR, and so I'm stuck. Thanks, – Deacon Vorbis ( carbon • videos) 19:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Named numbersisn’t great either, since every number is effectively named under a loose interpretation of
named, but a strict interpretation excludes things like Natural logarithm of 2. — MarkH21 talk 23:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
List of named constants seems the best of the suggestions so far, to me. I agree that we should avoid the term "notable", since its Wikipedian definition isn't quite the same as its meaning elsewhere. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to notify the project of some RfD nominations for mathematical characters at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 24 I've started today. Currently, there is mostly a one-to-one discussion, which probably isn't that helpful. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 21:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Recently, Category:Field theory was speedily renamed/moved to Category:Field (mathematics). ( Field theory is a disambiguation page, and so the name of Category:Field theory is/was itself ambiguous.) However, to me the name Category:Field (mathematics) suggests a category collecting articles about specific fields, and I would prefer the name Category:Field theory (mathematics), to make it match with Category:Category theory, Category:Group theory, Category:Lattice theory, Category:Module theory, Category:Ring theory, Category:Semigroup theory and so on. Then again, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." What do others say? – Tea2min ( talk) 08:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Please, discuss at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 24#L2 norm about the best target for the redirect L2 norm. D.Lazard ( talk) 21:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Notable? -- JBL ( talk) 14:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)