It seems to me that the articles on algebra over a field, associative algebra and non-associative algebra could use a thorough workover and possibly a merge.
The article on non-associative algebras says that '"non-associative" means "not necessarily associative"' (rather than "not associative") – but then it's not clear why this article is distinct from algebra over a field, which is also about algebras that "may or may not be associative". The sentence "The multiplication operation in an algebra may or may not be associative, leading to the notions of associative algebras and nonassociative algebras." in algebra over a field seems to imply that "non-associative" does mean "not associative".
Constructions such as quotients and products are briefly listed in associative algebra, but no reason is mentioned why these should require associativity; they're not mentioned in the more general articles. The most detailed discussion of direct sums and products of algebras in fact appears to be in yet another article on the direct sum of modules. This warns of a terminological pitfall that the articles on algebras don't mention.
In algebra over a field, the field is in the title and there's a section near the end on the generalization to algebras over a ring. In associative algebra, the introduction starts out saying that an algebra is over a field but the definition section uses a ring instead. In non-associative algebra, a field seems to be assumed, but there's no definition section and the introduction is very similar in this respect to the one in associative algebra.
Quite generally, it feels as if a lot of the content is spread somewhat randomly among these three articles. There should either be a single article about algebras, or, if associative algebras deserve an article of their own, that article should concentrate on the features that depend on associativity, and presumably general things like products and quotients should be in the general article.
(I don't want to do this myself since my understanding of algebras is somewhat superficial.)
Joriki ( talk) 19:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
One more thing: There's also an article algebra homomorphism, to which both algebra over a field and associative algebra refer as a "main article", even though it assumes associative algebras. The article on non-associative algebras doesn't mention homomorphisms.
Joriki ( talk) 19:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Further information about products of algebras is spread over tensor product of algebras and free product of associative algebras.
Joriki ( talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Some Mathworks employees have been making suggestions about the MATLAB page recently, but not directly making edits, in order to maintain neutrality.
One pointed on that page's talk page that the 'list of alternatives' on the MATLAB page is kind of weird. It's unsourced and is basically just a list of recommendations, which I'm pretty sure should be covered under one of the list of things Wikipedia is not.
On the one hand, I can see how this directly benefits the corporation, which is suspicious. On the other hand, I really don't think that kind of list is appropriate in an article. We don't have a list of alternatives for Adobe Photoshop, despite its awful business practices, or McAfee VirusScan, despite its shady nature.
I'd suggest removing that section or replacing it with something sourced (perhaps a review article describing commonly used mathematical languages). As it is, I don't think it should remain in its current form. I wanted to check in here before doing anything, but if people don't seem interested in discussion, I'll just remove it after a day or two. Brirush ( talk) 04:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I see that some mathematical subjects benefit immensely of animations and in particular interactive ones. How can we make possible to link those animations to an specific article? Would it be via external links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninguem wiki ( talk • contribs)
Our discussion from November 2020 has been reopened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Blackboard bold. D.Lazard ( talk) 11:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know offhand of a good reference to add to Induced metric? The reason for the "expert needed" tag is technically untrue (one reference exists rather than zero), but an additional pointer couldn't hurt. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Regarding section Oka's theorem, the content of the theorem seems correct (since the article name is a plurisubharmonic function, there is no need to use the term pseudoconvex domain.), but I have doubts about calling the content of this section Oka's theorem. (also, I think the prove to space was the IX'th Oka's paper in 1953.) There is no doubt that it was Kiyoshi Oka who solved Levi's problem for space (Riemannian domain), but it was Cartan who extended Levi's problem for Stein manifolds, which is written on this article and it seems like Grauert prove that. I'm wondering if Levi's problem with Stein manifolds should be included in Oka's theorem. I'm not sure about this because I just called it Levi's problem. thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 15:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Did this edit fix an error, or introduce one? Maths articles can be quiet, and problems might linger unnoticed; this seemed like the best place to ask. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 10:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
How can I use 𝟙 in a math equation? It seems from various sources that I need to use the bbm package. Is it possible to use LaTeX in Wikipedia articles that use packages? -- Yoderj ( talk) 13:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I have used some funny business in the Heaviside step function article:
<big>𝟙</big><math>\,\!_{x > 0}</math>
but there must be a better way -- Yoderj ( talk) 13:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I asked this question over at the help desk and Mike Turnbull guided me here:
Thanks! -- Yoderj ( talk) 18:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to call attention to a user script that has been developed to show WP:Short descriptions in category listings: User:SD0001/shortdescs-in-category
This might be of particular interest to mathematics users as categories of mathematical theorems typically show titles of the form "So-and-so and Other-person theorem," i.e. just the names of discoverers, which conveys little or no information about the result proved (or conjectured). When this script is installed and the Show SD button that appears is clicked, any short description associated with an article title is displayed beneath it. To the extent that these SDs are available and informative, it becomes much easier to understand the content of a theorem category.-- agr ( talk) 17:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Editors may want to monitor the flurry of new math articles by Remitbuber, including Math crisis, Adrián Macías, Blas Méndez, Virus Matemático, General Assembly of the International Mathematical Union, ICM 1966, ICM 2014, ICM 2026. Many do not seem notable and may involve a fair amount of COI. — MarkH21 talk 20:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Complex analysis articles sometimes say open connected set, is this better than writing domain alone?-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 08:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The formatting of the title of Minimal polynomial of 2cos(2pi/n) is abominable, and the DISPLAYTITLE template didn't help. How to proceed? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
On first glance the articles Rhombohedron and Trigonal trapezohedron are about the exact same object (the equilateral parallelepipeds). Before I start a merge discussion, I was hoping someone else would check that I'm not missing some meaningful subtlety. -- JBL ( talk) 15:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Graham Beards has nominated Group (mathematics) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me that the articles on algebra over a field, associative algebra and non-associative algebra could use a thorough workover and possibly a merge.
The article on non-associative algebras says that '"non-associative" means "not necessarily associative"' (rather than "not associative") – but then it's not clear why this article is distinct from algebra over a field, which is also about algebras that "may or may not be associative". The sentence "The multiplication operation in an algebra may or may not be associative, leading to the notions of associative algebras and nonassociative algebras." in algebra over a field seems to imply that "non-associative" does mean "not associative".
Constructions such as quotients and products are briefly listed in associative algebra, but no reason is mentioned why these should require associativity; they're not mentioned in the more general articles. The most detailed discussion of direct sums and products of algebras in fact appears to be in yet another article on the direct sum of modules. This warns of a terminological pitfall that the articles on algebras don't mention.
In algebra over a field, the field is in the title and there's a section near the end on the generalization to algebras over a ring. In associative algebra, the introduction starts out saying that an algebra is over a field but the definition section uses a ring instead. In non-associative algebra, a field seems to be assumed, but there's no definition section and the introduction is very similar in this respect to the one in associative algebra.
Quite generally, it feels as if a lot of the content is spread somewhat randomly among these three articles. There should either be a single article about algebras, or, if associative algebras deserve an article of their own, that article should concentrate on the features that depend on associativity, and presumably general things like products and quotients should be in the general article.
(I don't want to do this myself since my understanding of algebras is somewhat superficial.)
Joriki ( talk) 19:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
One more thing: There's also an article algebra homomorphism, to which both algebra over a field and associative algebra refer as a "main article", even though it assumes associative algebras. The article on non-associative algebras doesn't mention homomorphisms.
Joriki ( talk) 19:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Further information about products of algebras is spread over tensor product of algebras and free product of associative algebras.
Joriki ( talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Some Mathworks employees have been making suggestions about the MATLAB page recently, but not directly making edits, in order to maintain neutrality.
One pointed on that page's talk page that the 'list of alternatives' on the MATLAB page is kind of weird. It's unsourced and is basically just a list of recommendations, which I'm pretty sure should be covered under one of the list of things Wikipedia is not.
On the one hand, I can see how this directly benefits the corporation, which is suspicious. On the other hand, I really don't think that kind of list is appropriate in an article. We don't have a list of alternatives for Adobe Photoshop, despite its awful business practices, or McAfee VirusScan, despite its shady nature.
I'd suggest removing that section or replacing it with something sourced (perhaps a review article describing commonly used mathematical languages). As it is, I don't think it should remain in its current form. I wanted to check in here before doing anything, but if people don't seem interested in discussion, I'll just remove it after a day or two. Brirush ( talk) 04:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I see that some mathematical subjects benefit immensely of animations and in particular interactive ones. How can we make possible to link those animations to an specific article? Would it be via external links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninguem wiki ( talk • contribs)
Our discussion from November 2020 has been reopened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Blackboard bold. D.Lazard ( talk) 11:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know offhand of a good reference to add to Induced metric? The reason for the "expert needed" tag is technically untrue (one reference exists rather than zero), but an additional pointer couldn't hurt. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Regarding section Oka's theorem, the content of the theorem seems correct (since the article name is a plurisubharmonic function, there is no need to use the term pseudoconvex domain.), but I have doubts about calling the content of this section Oka's theorem. (also, I think the prove to space was the IX'th Oka's paper in 1953.) There is no doubt that it was Kiyoshi Oka who solved Levi's problem for space (Riemannian domain), but it was Cartan who extended Levi's problem for Stein manifolds, which is written on this article and it seems like Grauert prove that. I'm wondering if Levi's problem with Stein manifolds should be included in Oka's theorem. I'm not sure about this because I just called it Levi's problem. thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 15:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Did this edit fix an error, or introduce one? Maths articles can be quiet, and problems might linger unnoticed; this seemed like the best place to ask. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 10:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
How can I use 𝟙 in a math equation? It seems from various sources that I need to use the bbm package. Is it possible to use LaTeX in Wikipedia articles that use packages? -- Yoderj ( talk) 13:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I have used some funny business in the Heaviside step function article:
<big>𝟙</big><math>\,\!_{x > 0}</math>
but there must be a better way -- Yoderj ( talk) 13:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I asked this question over at the help desk and Mike Turnbull guided me here:
Thanks! -- Yoderj ( talk) 18:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to call attention to a user script that has been developed to show WP:Short descriptions in category listings: User:SD0001/shortdescs-in-category
This might be of particular interest to mathematics users as categories of mathematical theorems typically show titles of the form "So-and-so and Other-person theorem," i.e. just the names of discoverers, which conveys little or no information about the result proved (or conjectured). When this script is installed and the Show SD button that appears is clicked, any short description associated with an article title is displayed beneath it. To the extent that these SDs are available and informative, it becomes much easier to understand the content of a theorem category.-- agr ( talk) 17:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Editors may want to monitor the flurry of new math articles by Remitbuber, including Math crisis, Adrián Macías, Blas Méndez, Virus Matemático, General Assembly of the International Mathematical Union, ICM 1966, ICM 2014, ICM 2026. Many do not seem notable and may involve a fair amount of COI. — MarkH21 talk 20:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Complex analysis articles sometimes say open connected set, is this better than writing domain alone?-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 08:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
The formatting of the title of Minimal polynomial of 2cos(2pi/n) is abominable, and the DISPLAYTITLE template didn't help. How to proceed? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
On first glance the articles Rhombohedron and Trigonal trapezohedron are about the exact same object (the equilateral parallelepipeds). Before I start a merge discussion, I was hoping someone else would check that I'm not missing some meaningful subtlety. -- JBL ( talk) 15:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Graham Beards has nominated Group (mathematics) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)