The Basel problem was solved by a proof that
The Basel problem was solved by a proof that
The first statement above has the displayed TeX code indented by a colon at the beginning of the line. That has long been standard usage here. The second uses "blockquote". I've run into several like that today. Is that now considered a standard usage in Wikipedia articles? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
<blockquote>
and {{quote}}
are both standard. I've noticed <blockquote>
used a few times for math typesetting here too though. —
MarkH21
talk
01:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
<blockquote>...</blockquote>
will avoid the problem of a lack of indentation in material next to a body floating left, like at the picture I inserted above. It's possible that at least some of the cases of this being used in the wild are to try to work around this. Not even <math display="block">
will avoid that. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
02:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I would think the smaller font size of the block quote (carried through into mathematics formulas displayed that way) would be a bigger problem than the faulty indentation of the other styles. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I was very surprised that Template:Infobox polychoron was only used on the 6 regular polytopes. I'd like to see it used on ther other entries in Category:Polychora, but that may involve adding some parameters, including I think Hypervolume. I'm sure that Hypervolume can be pulled from Coxeter for the regular polytopes. I'd love any suggestions. Naraht ( talk) 04:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
n-polytopein general in some older discussions at Talk:Polytope)? — MarkH21 talk 05:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:4-polytope#It is entirely inappropriate for this article to be named "Polychoron" (2009), Talk:4-polytope#Pushing nonstandard terminology (2014), and Talk:4-polytope#Polychora again (2015). The move from the neologism "polychoron" to the much more widely used (in professional mathematics) "4-polytope" appears to have happened after the middle discussion. It's not so critical that we move the template in the same way (because its neologism isn't visible to readers) but we should do it anyway. We should certainly not push the neologisms back into view in our articles, for all the reasons discussed in the earlier discussions. (Also, anyone who has spent any effort on the polytope articles knows that they are a mass of original research, reduplicated off-topic material, and decorative but uninformative and off-topic image galleries that needs a power hose to clean out.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, are there any pages on Wikipedia for embedded points, in the sense of scheme theory: https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/05AJ? Wundzer ( talk) 05:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, my submission for the article /info/en/?search=Draft:Convexity_(algebraic_geometry) was declined due to not having sufficient context. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble figuring out how to improve the article so there is enough context available. How can I improve it? I've looked at a couple articles, like Flat module and Algebraic stack for help, but these both have similar introductions. Wundzer ( talk) 04:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
That the first cohomology class of the tangent bundle is zero implies that the variety has a globally generated section. For a variety to support such a globally connected section, the base variety needs to be a single connected region with no holes, i.e., it has properties analogous to the usual convex property in Euclidean geometry. Examples of convex varieties include X, Y and Z. Convex varieties are important in fields like quantum cohomology because they are particularly simple and allow for easier computation of their topological and geometric properties.
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)I proposed a merge here from Ramification theory of valuations to Ramification group. I imagine they're fairly low-traffic pages, so any thoughts would be appreciated! — MarkH21 talk 01:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I am proposing deletion of the article Structure (category theory), due to the fact that it seems unfocused/incoherent and has no essential content. Please chime in here. -- Jordan Mitchell Barrett ( talk) 21:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Bump! The AfD was relisted and more discussion is needed, since we can’t decide on a merge/redirect target (or outright deletion)! — MarkH21 talk 10:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well (e.g. picking up links to Stack Exchange in List of unsolved problems in fair division). Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I've just accepted Brazilian number at AfC. This is not a topic I grock at all, so could someone please have a look and see if the content is sensible? – Uanfala (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
00:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I've received a talk page message objecting to the merge of Brazilian number to Repdigit. I'm copying over the relevant parts:
4) I really think that this article merits to have its own article. Why?
- 4.1) This article “Brazilian number” comes from the French Wikipédia article "Nombre brésilien": link below:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nombre_br%C3%A9silien
- 4.2) This submission "Brazilian number" is like other mathematical articles that concern number theory such as palindromic numbers, prime numbers, self numbers, Fermat numbers, Mersenne numbers, repunits, transcendental numbers, ... there is an introduction, followed by an history presentation, then different paragraphs that detailed the properties of these numbers. The structure of this article is perfect for beeing independent.
- 4.3) The Brazilian number section I have written is here 12 times greater than the original article about repdigits, this is not balanced; when there is a complement on an article, the complement is always smaller than the original text. Here, it is clearly the opposite and this cannot be good for understanding the whole article.
- 4.4) There are in the “Brazilian number” text 28 Wikipedia references (in blue) towards mathematical terms or famous mathematicians, and ten references or external links towards historical articles. I don't forget the 18 links to OEIS sequences related with Brazilian numbers. That proves that this article can (must) be autonomous.
- 4.5) About mathematical angle, all Brazilian numbers are repdigits but the converse is false. I remark also that you use my definition of Brazilian numbers to explain repdigits (thanks).
- 4.6) To finish, repdigits belong rather to recreative mathematics and Brazilian belong rather to number theory.
Hence, please, only one question, why don't you create a Brazilian number article independent as in French Wikipédia? There is no sens to put this structured article of 102 lines at the end of the repdigit article of only 7 lines...
Merci for your answer.
Best regards.
Inviting Mark viking, David Eppstein, Taku, Reyk, XOR'easter, and JBL to comment. – Uanfala (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
First, the draft “Brazilian number” was not accepted by English Wikipedia because “This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter”. !!!!!!!!
Second, I learn later that this draft “has been created”...but I understand this draft has been merged with repunit because "Isn't this exactly the same thing as described in the existing article repunit?"
I put another last explanation that shows that merge was not the correct outcome.
and, in the same encyclopedia,
So, there are only four identic terms {7, 8, 22, 33} among the first 20 terms of each sequence. In OEIS, there are more than 100 sequences relative to Brazilian Numbers.
Also, my friends and I don't understand the meaning of "(the only difficulty in the reading is not a lack of balance, but the choppiness of using lists instead of prose)." Please, thanks to explain with other words what this sentence means.
To finish, I read also that "Brazilian number" is " an obviously terrible name".
In these conditions, the best decision is to follow your suggestion "Of course that does not forbid editing the merged article!"
Thanks very much for your help.
OSS117 ( talk) 10:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Bonjour Taku, Thanks for your message. Yes, you ask the right "question" but the answer looks like rather subjective here. Some participants have decided 1st March to merge "repdigit" and "Brazilian number". Since, although I wrote a lot of mathematical reasons to explain this merge is a nonsense, the participants think the merge was the correct outcome. Merge a well documented mathematical article of 102 lines at the end of a "repdigit" article of only 7 lines (whose 2 lines for numerology) is also difficult to understand. So, the best issue for this structured mathematical article about "Brazilian number" was to delete this article from the "repunit" article. Very sorry for the time you have lost with this true mathematical article "Brazilian number". OSS117 ( talk) 22:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
the only difficulty in the reading is not a lack of balance, but the choppiness of using lists instead of prose. Here's my interpretation. C'était essentiellement que: le fait que la majorité de l'article concernait les nombres brésiliens n'était pas une cause de difficulté de lecture, mais le fait que la majorité de l'article a été écrit sous forme de liste était une cause (en fait, la seule cause) de difficulté de lecture. Ici,
choppinesssignifie qu'une liste présente le matériel dans un rythme très staccato et les faits dans une liste ne coulent pas bien. Les connecteurs logiques en écriture de prose collent ensemble le
choppiness(les «saccades» de mots)... — MarkH21 talk 22:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Bonjour, I see you have improved the article repdigit and the merged part Brazilian number. It is a real good job, congratulations. I retain some of your ideas to improve the French Wiki Nombres brésiliens. Thanks to JBL for I am "very welcome to continue contributing to the article". First, I want to improve the French Wiki, and I go back here. What do you prefer? I propose here in this talk page some improvements or precisions that I think it could be interesting for the article and you say yes or no, or I put directly in repdigit article what I think improvements or precisions and then you fix or delete, in the two cases, I shall be ok with all you choose or prefer. Have a nice day. OSS117 ( talk) 06:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The following edit suggests that the template:MathGenealogy is unnecessary:
Searching the archives no such suggestion was found. If WikiData includes the link, is it not for articles ? — Rgdboer ( talk) 02:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so MGP is duplicated by Authority control. Has now been cited inline to support the quoted statement. Thank you for your in-depth response. — Rgdboer ( talk) 00:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason to have these separate articles? They have both been around for a long time. -- JBL ( talk) 16:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The idea is to include simple code snippets, at the end of each math article, to connect concepts and algorithms. An important aspect of this type of approach is to bind concepts to something practical, encouraging through that, the experimentation of mathematical concepts.
As examples of that suggestion, check Outer product and Dot Product in Linear Algebra.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexzumalde ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
In case anyone here isn't already aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics, we currently have seven ongoing deletion discussions (including new ones on multiplicative calculus and of four Pakistani mathematicians) and one prodded article listed there. Please participate with your opinions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I have open there a discussion for deciding whether Fundamental theorem of linear algebra should be moved, merged or deleted. Suggestions are welcome. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
A review of this draft is requested. Should it be accepted?
I don't really understand, but I have forgotten all of the higher math that I learned fifty years ago. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
p, so the redlink that I wrote is the article title that I had in mind. The article should then be slightly rewritten to separate the general prime p case from the case of p = 2.If I have time, I may get around to doing some of that writing. — MarkH21 talk 23:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
platinum ratio ? 2601:281:CC80:2F50:95AC:31F3:E071:B6A3 ( talk) 19:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
We need to improve formulation of Symmetric successive over-relaxation. -- Kulgai ( talk) 06:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
R with possibilities}}
) might be reasonable. As a side note, look at all the code there; should that simply be scrubbed? –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
14:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)The Basel problem was solved by a proof that
The Basel problem was solved by a proof that
The first statement above has the displayed TeX code indented by a colon at the beginning of the line. That has long been standard usage here. The second uses "blockquote". I've run into several like that today. Is that now considered a standard usage in Wikipedia articles? Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
<blockquote>
and {{quote}}
are both standard. I've noticed <blockquote>
used a few times for math typesetting here too though. —
MarkH21
talk
01:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
<blockquote>...</blockquote>
will avoid the problem of a lack of indentation in material next to a body floating left, like at the picture I inserted above. It's possible that at least some of the cases of this being used in the wild are to try to work around this. Not even <math display="block">
will avoid that. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
02:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I would think the smaller font size of the block quote (carried through into mathematics formulas displayed that way) would be a bigger problem than the faulty indentation of the other styles. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I was very surprised that Template:Infobox polychoron was only used on the 6 regular polytopes. I'd like to see it used on ther other entries in Category:Polychora, but that may involve adding some parameters, including I think Hypervolume. I'm sure that Hypervolume can be pulled from Coxeter for the regular polytopes. I'd love any suggestions. Naraht ( talk) 04:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
n-polytopein general in some older discussions at Talk:Polytope)? — MarkH21 talk 05:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:4-polytope#It is entirely inappropriate for this article to be named "Polychoron" (2009), Talk:4-polytope#Pushing nonstandard terminology (2014), and Talk:4-polytope#Polychora again (2015). The move from the neologism "polychoron" to the much more widely used (in professional mathematics) "4-polytope" appears to have happened after the middle discussion. It's not so critical that we move the template in the same way (because its neologism isn't visible to readers) but we should do it anyway. We should certainly not push the neologisms back into view in our articles, for all the reasons discussed in the earlier discussions. (Also, anyone who has spent any effort on the polytope articles knows that they are a mass of original research, reduplicated off-topic material, and decorative but uninformative and off-topic image galleries that needs a power hose to clean out.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, are there any pages on Wikipedia for embedded points, in the sense of scheme theory: https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/05AJ? Wundzer ( talk) 05:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, my submission for the article /info/en/?search=Draft:Convexity_(algebraic_geometry) was declined due to not having sufficient context. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble figuring out how to improve the article so there is enough context available. How can I improve it? I've looked at a couple articles, like Flat module and Algebraic stack for help, but these both have similar introductions. Wundzer ( talk) 04:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
That the first cohomology class of the tangent bundle is zero implies that the variety has a globally generated section. For a variety to support such a globally connected section, the base variety needs to be a single connected region with no holes, i.e., it has properties analogous to the usual convex property in Euclidean geometry. Examples of convex varieties include X, Y and Z. Convex varieties are important in fields like quantum cohomology because they are particularly simple and allow for easier computation of their topological and geometric properties.
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)I proposed a merge here from Ramification theory of valuations to Ramification group. I imagine they're fairly low-traffic pages, so any thoughts would be appreciated! — MarkH21 talk 01:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I am proposing deletion of the article Structure (category theory), due to the fact that it seems unfocused/incoherent and has no essential content. Please chime in here. -- Jordan Mitchell Barrett ( talk) 21:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Bump! The AfD was relisted and more discussion is needed, since we can’t decide on a merge/redirect target (or outright deletion)! — MarkH21 talk 10:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well (e.g. picking up links to Stack Exchange in List of unsolved problems in fair division). Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I've just accepted Brazilian number at AfC. This is not a topic I grock at all, so could someone please have a look and see if the content is sensible? – Uanfala (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
00:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I've received a talk page message objecting to the merge of Brazilian number to Repdigit. I'm copying over the relevant parts:
4) I really think that this article merits to have its own article. Why?
- 4.1) This article “Brazilian number” comes from the French Wikipédia article "Nombre brésilien": link below:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nombre_br%C3%A9silien
- 4.2) This submission "Brazilian number" is like other mathematical articles that concern number theory such as palindromic numbers, prime numbers, self numbers, Fermat numbers, Mersenne numbers, repunits, transcendental numbers, ... there is an introduction, followed by an history presentation, then different paragraphs that detailed the properties of these numbers. The structure of this article is perfect for beeing independent.
- 4.3) The Brazilian number section I have written is here 12 times greater than the original article about repdigits, this is not balanced; when there is a complement on an article, the complement is always smaller than the original text. Here, it is clearly the opposite and this cannot be good for understanding the whole article.
- 4.4) There are in the “Brazilian number” text 28 Wikipedia references (in blue) towards mathematical terms or famous mathematicians, and ten references or external links towards historical articles. I don't forget the 18 links to OEIS sequences related with Brazilian numbers. That proves that this article can (must) be autonomous.
- 4.5) About mathematical angle, all Brazilian numbers are repdigits but the converse is false. I remark also that you use my definition of Brazilian numbers to explain repdigits (thanks).
- 4.6) To finish, repdigits belong rather to recreative mathematics and Brazilian belong rather to number theory.
Hence, please, only one question, why don't you create a Brazilian number article independent as in French Wikipédia? There is no sens to put this structured article of 102 lines at the end of the repdigit article of only 7 lines...
Merci for your answer.
Best regards.
Inviting Mark viking, David Eppstein, Taku, Reyk, XOR'easter, and JBL to comment. – Uanfala (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
First, the draft “Brazilian number” was not accepted by English Wikipedia because “This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter”. !!!!!!!!
Second, I learn later that this draft “has been created”...but I understand this draft has been merged with repunit because "Isn't this exactly the same thing as described in the existing article repunit?"
I put another last explanation that shows that merge was not the correct outcome.
and, in the same encyclopedia,
So, there are only four identic terms {7, 8, 22, 33} among the first 20 terms of each sequence. In OEIS, there are more than 100 sequences relative to Brazilian Numbers.
Also, my friends and I don't understand the meaning of "(the only difficulty in the reading is not a lack of balance, but the choppiness of using lists instead of prose)." Please, thanks to explain with other words what this sentence means.
To finish, I read also that "Brazilian number" is " an obviously terrible name".
In these conditions, the best decision is to follow your suggestion "Of course that does not forbid editing the merged article!"
Thanks very much for your help.
OSS117 ( talk) 10:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Bonjour Taku, Thanks for your message. Yes, you ask the right "question" but the answer looks like rather subjective here. Some participants have decided 1st March to merge "repdigit" and "Brazilian number". Since, although I wrote a lot of mathematical reasons to explain this merge is a nonsense, the participants think the merge was the correct outcome. Merge a well documented mathematical article of 102 lines at the end of a "repdigit" article of only 7 lines (whose 2 lines for numerology) is also difficult to understand. So, the best issue for this structured mathematical article about "Brazilian number" was to delete this article from the "repunit" article. Very sorry for the time you have lost with this true mathematical article "Brazilian number". OSS117 ( talk) 22:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
the only difficulty in the reading is not a lack of balance, but the choppiness of using lists instead of prose. Here's my interpretation. C'était essentiellement que: le fait que la majorité de l'article concernait les nombres brésiliens n'était pas une cause de difficulté de lecture, mais le fait que la majorité de l'article a été écrit sous forme de liste était une cause (en fait, la seule cause) de difficulté de lecture. Ici,
choppinesssignifie qu'une liste présente le matériel dans un rythme très staccato et les faits dans une liste ne coulent pas bien. Les connecteurs logiques en écriture de prose collent ensemble le
choppiness(les «saccades» de mots)... — MarkH21 talk 22:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Bonjour, I see you have improved the article repdigit and the merged part Brazilian number. It is a real good job, congratulations. I retain some of your ideas to improve the French Wiki Nombres brésiliens. Thanks to JBL for I am "very welcome to continue contributing to the article". First, I want to improve the French Wiki, and I go back here. What do you prefer? I propose here in this talk page some improvements or precisions that I think it could be interesting for the article and you say yes or no, or I put directly in repdigit article what I think improvements or precisions and then you fix or delete, in the two cases, I shall be ok with all you choose or prefer. Have a nice day. OSS117 ( talk) 06:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
The following edit suggests that the template:MathGenealogy is unnecessary:
Searching the archives no such suggestion was found. If WikiData includes the link, is it not for articles ? — Rgdboer ( talk) 02:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so MGP is duplicated by Authority control. Has now been cited inline to support the quoted statement. Thank you for your in-depth response. — Rgdboer ( talk) 00:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason to have these separate articles? They have both been around for a long time. -- JBL ( talk) 16:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The idea is to include simple code snippets, at the end of each math article, to connect concepts and algorithms. An important aspect of this type of approach is to bind concepts to something practical, encouraging through that, the experimentation of mathematical concepts.
As examples of that suggestion, check Outer product and Dot Product in Linear Algebra.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexzumalde ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
In case anyone here isn't already aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics, we currently have seven ongoing deletion discussions (including new ones on multiplicative calculus and of four Pakistani mathematicians) and one prodded article listed there. Please participate with your opinions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I have open there a discussion for deciding whether Fundamental theorem of linear algebra should be moved, merged or deleted. Suggestions are welcome. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
A review of this draft is requested. Should it be accepted?
I don't really understand, but I have forgotten all of the higher math that I learned fifty years ago. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
p, so the redlink that I wrote is the article title that I had in mind. The article should then be slightly rewritten to separate the general prime p case from the case of p = 2.If I have time, I may get around to doing some of that writing. — MarkH21 talk 23:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
platinum ratio ? 2601:281:CC80:2F50:95AC:31F3:E071:B6A3 ( talk) 19:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
We need to improve formulation of Symmetric successive over-relaxation. -- Kulgai ( talk) 06:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
R with possibilities}}
) might be reasonable. As a side note, look at all the code there; should that simply be scrubbed? –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
14:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)