I'm having difficulty tracking down a good definition for the technical use of the word "admits" for use in the List of mathematical jargon article. (See Talk:List_of_mathematical_jargon#"Admits"). Can anyone provide one, preferably with a WP:RS to support it? -- The Anome ( talk) 10:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
(transitive) To be capable of; to permit. In this sense, "of" may be used after the verb, or may be omitted.
the words do not admit such a construction.
This is a standard word but not actually a technical term, except possibly in some special cases. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Since the old discussion was archived, it seems like the consensus was to either redirect Mirror symmetry to Mirror symmetry (disambiguation) or just flat out delete the Mirror symmetry page so it doesn't have a redirect. Can an admin weight into this? Wundzer ( talk) 20:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
For some totally stupid, utterly ill-thought-out reason, I decided to resolve some red-link issues at Talk:Markov odometer by filling in an article for conservative system (which used to be a wildly incorrect redirect to conserved quantity). Recall that a conservative system is that thing that is contrasted with a dissipative system, and that the Hopf decomposition theorem states that every dynamical system decomposes into a conservative part, and a dissipative part. In simplified terms, a system is conservative if and only if the Poincaré recurrence theorem applies. Hopf did his work in the 1930's, Poincare did his work in the 19th century, and I think the core ideas of a conservative system go back into the 18th century. You can type in "conservative dynamical system" into you favorite search engine and see the hits keep on coming. Of course, it has nothing to do with the current political miasma. Despite all this, some nice WPdian decided that the topic was non-notable and lacked a sufficient number of references and moved it to draft space. Here: Draft:Conservative system ... anyone care to, umm, do whatever it takes to do whatever it is that has to be done to move along the process that results in the publication of those kinds of articles that cover basic, remedial topics in mathematics and physics? 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 17:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Is mathscinet appropriate as a resource? I am aware that it might dip into "original research" and also that it may be bad because of the paywall/institutional access. Just as hypothetical examples (just in terms of the mathscinet use in and of itself) what would be the appropriateness of the following:
1. using the fact that Yoshikazu Giga has ten articles cited over 100 times on mathscinet as justification of notability for a wikipedia article
2. this kind of sentence in an article: "According to MathSciNet, Yau's article [ref] is the most widely cited differential geometry article of the 1970s."
3. this kind of sentence in an article: "According to MathSciNet, six of the ten most widely cited differential geometry articles in the 1970s were written by Yau."
4. this kind of sentence in an article: "According to MathSciNet, Serre's most widely cited article is [ref]."
Gumshoe2 ( talk) 04:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
04:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)When a mathematician does have genuinely high citation counts (like Giga), there is generally also some better reason for justifying the article (like, in his case, being an AMS Fellow).
I've created an article Draft:Resonant interaction and would like to request for a review, and/or for someone to move this to main article space. As this is primarily physics, I've also placed a request at WP:Physics for the same. I'm posting here, because one aspect, the three-wave equation, have seen intensive study, via inverse scattering methods, for the last 5-6 decades by a variety of prize-winning mathematicians. (They have a Lax pair, specifically, a 3x3 Lax pair). (Actually, I'm planning to split the three-wave resonant interaction into it's own article, the Draft:Three-wave equation. It's rather remarkable; the simplified case is solved by the Weirstrass elliptic functions and so has the Eisenstein series g_2 and g_3 as invariants. Apparently, the Diophantine equations show up too, so its rather number-theoretic-ish for something that shows up in non-linear optics, etc. Which is why I post here, and not just WP:Physics) 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 21:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I came across this article while doing AFC review. I felt that this article will require some specialist review. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm thinking of moving the draft Draft:List of discoveries in mathematics to mainspace. What do the others think? The topic itself seems reasonable except there is an obvious classic problem of: is mathematics inverted or discovered or both ? Since, in Wikipedia, we can't take a side. The draft should be probably named to Draft:List of discoveries and inventions in mathematics or something. Also, "timeline" instead of "list" may better reflect the current structure of the draft. (The draft itself looks incomplete but the development can still continue in mainspace) -- Taku ( talk) 02:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The longstanding consensus at Fields Medal since 2014 was to remove the "nationality" column on the grounds of:
I had removed the column again after I realized that an IP had added the "nationality" column back into the table in 2019, and I opened Talk:Fields Medal/Archive 1#Removing the entire nationality column where a new editor is adamant on keeping the column. The discussion could use additional input from math editors here. Thanks. — MarkH21 talk 06:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
While we're on the topic, I think most of Ber31's edits of 14 September are unhelpful, but I wasn't sure if reverting is worth it. What are your thoughts? Brirush ( talk) 02:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Could someone with sufficient nous have a look at Ultragraph C*-algebra? To me that is just highly structured barbed wire, and I can't tell whether it's sufficiently distinct from C*-algebra to merit a separate article, or if it should be merged. In any case I suspect it would have to be a lot less technical; it currently looks like the deep end of an advanced text book. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 04:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to request a review of Draft:Three-wave equation and a move to main-article namespace, as appropriate. It is an applied-mathematics/physics article mostly, used in fluid mechanics, plasma physics, electronics and the like, where this is seen. Mathematically interesting because the uniform solutions are given by Lax pairs and are classified by modular invariants. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 14:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I've tried to do a little work on Mandelbrot set — making notation consistent, streamlining the parts that are supposed to be summaries, etc. Naturally, the article is filled with pretty pictures, perhaps to an overwhelming extent. In particular, the "3D Images" section seems a bit over the top (and maybe OR-ish). Thoughts on how to improve the page would be most welcome. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Here are some ideas for "improvement" with "improvement" in scare quotes:
Yes, its a chore to do this but you asked :-) 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 00:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I was reading fractal-related the articles such as Hausdorff measure and fractal derivative, as well as doing some reading outside of wikipedia on these topics. In this reading, I noticed that many outside sources tend to lean towards a generic "fractal measure" rather than specifically mentioning Hausdorff measure. Indeed, other fractal measures such as packing measures do exist. However, the hausdorff measure is clearly the most used and most notable one, to the extent that I'd be surprised if most other fractal measures would be considered notable at all. So my question is: should fractal measure be created as a redirect to hausdorff measure, being the most significant of the fractal measures? Or does it warrant a small page of its own describing what makes a fractal measure? Is it notable enough on its own? Thanks, Integral Python click here to argue with me 17:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty tracking down a good definition for the technical use of the word "admits" for use in the List of mathematical jargon article. (See Talk:List_of_mathematical_jargon#"Admits"). Can anyone provide one, preferably with a WP:RS to support it? -- The Anome ( talk) 10:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
(transitive) To be capable of; to permit. In this sense, "of" may be used after the verb, or may be omitted.
the words do not admit such a construction.
This is a standard word but not actually a technical term, except possibly in some special cases. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Since the old discussion was archived, it seems like the consensus was to either redirect Mirror symmetry to Mirror symmetry (disambiguation) or just flat out delete the Mirror symmetry page so it doesn't have a redirect. Can an admin weight into this? Wundzer ( talk) 20:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
For some totally stupid, utterly ill-thought-out reason, I decided to resolve some red-link issues at Talk:Markov odometer by filling in an article for conservative system (which used to be a wildly incorrect redirect to conserved quantity). Recall that a conservative system is that thing that is contrasted with a dissipative system, and that the Hopf decomposition theorem states that every dynamical system decomposes into a conservative part, and a dissipative part. In simplified terms, a system is conservative if and only if the Poincaré recurrence theorem applies. Hopf did his work in the 1930's, Poincare did his work in the 19th century, and I think the core ideas of a conservative system go back into the 18th century. You can type in "conservative dynamical system" into you favorite search engine and see the hits keep on coming. Of course, it has nothing to do with the current political miasma. Despite all this, some nice WPdian decided that the topic was non-notable and lacked a sufficient number of references and moved it to draft space. Here: Draft:Conservative system ... anyone care to, umm, do whatever it takes to do whatever it is that has to be done to move along the process that results in the publication of those kinds of articles that cover basic, remedial topics in mathematics and physics? 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 17:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Is mathscinet appropriate as a resource? I am aware that it might dip into "original research" and also that it may be bad because of the paywall/institutional access. Just as hypothetical examples (just in terms of the mathscinet use in and of itself) what would be the appropriateness of the following:
1. using the fact that Yoshikazu Giga has ten articles cited over 100 times on mathscinet as justification of notability for a wikipedia article
2. this kind of sentence in an article: "According to MathSciNet, Yau's article [ref] is the most widely cited differential geometry article of the 1970s."
3. this kind of sentence in an article: "According to MathSciNet, six of the ten most widely cited differential geometry articles in the 1970s were written by Yau."
4. this kind of sentence in an article: "According to MathSciNet, Serre's most widely cited article is [ref]."
Gumshoe2 ( talk) 04:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
04:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)When a mathematician does have genuinely high citation counts (like Giga), there is generally also some better reason for justifying the article (like, in his case, being an AMS Fellow).
I've created an article Draft:Resonant interaction and would like to request for a review, and/or for someone to move this to main article space. As this is primarily physics, I've also placed a request at WP:Physics for the same. I'm posting here, because one aspect, the three-wave equation, have seen intensive study, via inverse scattering methods, for the last 5-6 decades by a variety of prize-winning mathematicians. (They have a Lax pair, specifically, a 3x3 Lax pair). (Actually, I'm planning to split the three-wave resonant interaction into it's own article, the Draft:Three-wave equation. It's rather remarkable; the simplified case is solved by the Weirstrass elliptic functions and so has the Eisenstein series g_2 and g_3 as invariants. Apparently, the Diophantine equations show up too, so its rather number-theoretic-ish for something that shows up in non-linear optics, etc. Which is why I post here, and not just WP:Physics) 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 21:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I came across this article while doing AFC review. I felt that this article will require some specialist review. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm thinking of moving the draft Draft:List of discoveries in mathematics to mainspace. What do the others think? The topic itself seems reasonable except there is an obvious classic problem of: is mathematics inverted or discovered or both ? Since, in Wikipedia, we can't take a side. The draft should be probably named to Draft:List of discoveries and inventions in mathematics or something. Also, "timeline" instead of "list" may better reflect the current structure of the draft. (The draft itself looks incomplete but the development can still continue in mainspace) -- Taku ( talk) 02:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
The longstanding consensus at Fields Medal since 2014 was to remove the "nationality" column on the grounds of:
I had removed the column again after I realized that an IP had added the "nationality" column back into the table in 2019, and I opened Talk:Fields Medal/Archive 1#Removing the entire nationality column where a new editor is adamant on keeping the column. The discussion could use additional input from math editors here. Thanks. — MarkH21 talk 06:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
While we're on the topic, I think most of Ber31's edits of 14 September are unhelpful, but I wasn't sure if reverting is worth it. What are your thoughts? Brirush ( talk) 02:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Could someone with sufficient nous have a look at Ultragraph C*-algebra? To me that is just highly structured barbed wire, and I can't tell whether it's sufficiently distinct from C*-algebra to merit a separate article, or if it should be merged. In any case I suspect it would have to be a lot less technical; it currently looks like the deep end of an advanced text book. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 04:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to request a review of Draft:Three-wave equation and a move to main-article namespace, as appropriate. It is an applied-mathematics/physics article mostly, used in fluid mechanics, plasma physics, electronics and the like, where this is seen. Mathematically interesting because the uniform solutions are given by Lax pairs and are classified by modular invariants. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 14:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I've tried to do a little work on Mandelbrot set — making notation consistent, streamlining the parts that are supposed to be summaries, etc. Naturally, the article is filled with pretty pictures, perhaps to an overwhelming extent. In particular, the "3D Images" section seems a bit over the top (and maybe OR-ish). Thoughts on how to improve the page would be most welcome. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Here are some ideas for "improvement" with "improvement" in scare quotes:
Yes, its a chore to do this but you asked :-) 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 00:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I was reading fractal-related the articles such as Hausdorff measure and fractal derivative, as well as doing some reading outside of wikipedia on these topics. In this reading, I noticed that many outside sources tend to lean towards a generic "fractal measure" rather than specifically mentioning Hausdorff measure. Indeed, other fractal measures such as packing measures do exist. However, the hausdorff measure is clearly the most used and most notable one, to the extent that I'd be surprised if most other fractal measures would be considered notable at all. So my question is: should fractal measure be created as a redirect to hausdorff measure, being the most significant of the fractal measures? Or does it warrant a small page of its own describing what makes a fractal measure? Is it notable enough on its own? Thanks, Integral Python click here to argue with me 17:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)