In many articles concerning the mathematical field of computability theory, I propose changing the terminology from "recursive X" to "computable X". For example:
I have two reasons for this proposal:
There are plenty of pages which use the outdated terminology, such as recursively enumerable set, recursive ordinal, forcing (recursion theory) and index set (recursion theory). I would rename these to computably enumerable set, computable ordinal, forcing (computability) and index set (computability) respectively.
Note: I am not proposing this change for every instance of the word "recursive". For instance, I would keep primitive recursive and Kleene's recursion theorem as they are, as those are still the popular names for those concepts.
-- Jordan Mitchell Barrett ( talk) 05:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Researchers in the subject have recently changed the the name of the subject from “Recursion Theory” to “Computability Theory” in order to make clear this distinction [in meaning between the terms]. Thus, the term “recursive” no longer carries the additional meaning of “computable” or “decidable,” as it once did. This reinforces the original meaning of “recursive” and induction as understood by Dedekind, Peano, Hilbert, Skolem, Godel ... and by most modern computer scientists, mathematicians, and physical scientists. Presently, if functions are defined, or sets are enumerated, or relative computability is defined using Turing machines, register machines, or variants of these ... then the name “computable” rather than “recursive” will be attached to the result, ... Thus, the terms “recursive” and “computable” have reacquired their traditional and original meanings, and those understood by most outsiders.
After the articles [Soare 1996] and [Soare 1999] on the history and scientific reasons for why we should use “computable” and not “recursive” to mean “calculable,” many authors changed terminology to have “recursive” mean only inductive and they introduced new terms such as “computably enumerable (c.e.)” to replace “recursively enumerable.” This helped lead to an increased awareness of the relationship of Turing computability to other areas. There sprang up organizations like Computability in Europe (CiE) which developed these relationships.
Things started to change in earnest around 1995–96. These changes were rooted in two seemingly unrelated developments, one philosophical and political in content, and the other technical. The first involved a deliberate attempt to reinstate Turing’s terminology in keeping with the subject’s origins in real world questions — ‘computable’ in place of ‘recursive’ etc. — a project outlined in Robert Soare’s 1996 paper on ‘Computability and recursion’.
Update: it seems there was consensus around some things, such as changing disambiguating parentheses in article titles from "(recursion theory)" to "(computability)". Hence, I've now moved Forcing (recursion theory) to Forcing (computability), and Index set (recursion theory) to Index set (computability). I tried to move Reduction (recursion theory) to Reduction (computability), but the latter is already a redirect to Reduction (complexity). In any case, it looks like Reduction (recursion theory) should be merged into Reduction (complexity), which I've proposed.
I'd still like to move the following articles:
My reasons are as stated above. My interpretation of the above discussion is that I have support from Trovatore and David Eppstein, with some disagreement from D.Lazard (who still hasn't responded after I provided sources witnessing the change in terminology). I would appreciate input from other editors on whether they support or oppose such changes.
For now, I don't think we should move Recursive language, as this concept seems more in the realm of theoretical CS, where they may use different terminology. Then again, maybe Decidable language is a more common name? -- Jordan Mitchell Barrett ( talk) 01:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
For your information, user:Cewbot has been removing vital-article templates from the talk pages of these renamed articles. I suspect that that is a mistake. JRSpriggs ( talk) 18:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I know a number of you have done great work in saving old math-related featured articles from being delisted at FAR. So I figured it might be useful to put together a list of old FAs within this project's scope that could be in danger of potentially losing their star, in the hope of getting them fixed up before somebody starts the formal delisting process. I've done that below; here are a few thoughts: 1) These articles are not all the same. Some may have no issues at all, while others may be practically unsalvageable. 2) You can read the featured article criteria here. While an FA must meet each criterion, in my experience the most important issue for these old FAs is referencing. Our expectations on inline citations have changed a lot over the past twenty years, so making sure that there aren't vast deserts of uncited text is really important. Fixing up any prose issues is also helpful, as is making sure that the article is still a comprehensive overview of the subject. 3) The year provided is the year of the most recent FAC or FAR. Older articles often require more work, but this is of course only a generalization. This list contains only articles that have not been reviewed in more than ten years. 4) If this sort of work interests you, please come help out at WP:URFA/2020. We have an enormous backlog of old featured articles on all subjects that are in need of review.
Notice given: These are the most urgent priorities. Someone has made a note on the article's talk page that the article may not meet the featured article criteria. Such articles are in danger of being imminently taken to FAR.
Notice not given: Notice has not yet been given for these articles, so they aren't urgent priorities. Just take a look and see if there are any obvious issues with them that need work. If you feel confident in your understanding of the featured article criteria, feel free to go to WP:URFA/2020 and follow the instructions to either give notice, mark the article as satisfactory, or provide other comments.
I hope this list is useful to you all. Getting these FAs taken care of outside the formal process is good for everyone: it reduces the URFA backlog, it gives you all advance notice of potential issues, and it provides an incentive to improve these important articles. Do let me know if I can be of any assistance: while my mathematical expertise is lacking, I'm glad to answer any questions about the FAR process. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Missing square puzzle 91,834 3,061 Start-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
By the way, can 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ⋯, 1/2 − 1/4 + 1/8 − 1/16 + ⋯ and 1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256 + ⋯ be merge? The alternating series are mixed, but I think there is no problem because it converges absolutely. How about the title, such as ′′Infinite sum of multiplicative inverse of Power of two′′?-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 12:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Leonhard Euler 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. ( t · c) buidhe 04:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
There's a sentence in the article that's confusing me, and I think here may be a better place than the FAR to get an informed opinion: In the applied mathematics section, it states "He also facilitated the use of differential equations, in particular introducing the Euler–Mascheroni constant". My understanding of the Euler–Mascheroni constant is that its primary use is as the constant error term in the approximation of the harmonic series by the logarithm (or, I suppose, vice versa, but that's the usual direction of approximation for me), and that it belongs more to the analysis or maybe analytic number theory sections than in a section on applied mathematics and a sentence on differential equations. But maybe there's an application of this constant to differential equations with which I'm unfamiliar and which the "Appearances" section of Euler–Mascheroni constant doesn't make clear? — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The article has been moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates section. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Found in new article queue. Please review and expand at your leisure. Many thanks. -- Gryllida ( talk, e-mail) 06:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The proof of quadratic reciprocity given in Quadratic reciprocity#Proof is a blatant copyright violation: it is a verbatim copy (letter for letter, down to idiosyncracies in the notation) of almost the complete text (only omitting the initial sentence) of the paper Bogdan Veklych, A Minimalist Proof of the Law of Quadratic Reciprocity, The American Mathematical Monthly 126 (2019), no. 10, p. 928, doi: 10.1080/00029890.2019.1655331. (It’s a short paper.) I tried to remove it, but I am being reverted by user Strecosaurus ( talk · contribs), who hasn’t got the slightest clue about copyright law and scientific publishing (see talk), but is all the more aggressive for it. Can someone else have a look?— Emil J. 07:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, mathematicians! There's a discussion going on about what constitutes a "routine calculation", and I think it would benefit from your input. Please see Wikipedia talk:No original research.— S Marshall T/ C 17:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Retarget to Complex analysis, and with hatnote to Function of several complex variables. Also delete "Complex variables (disambiguation)". Also see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5#Complex variables (disambiguation). thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 04:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, the discussion is invalid in Redirects for discussion (Complex variables (disambiguation)). Apparently, on this page or on the complex variable talk page, the discussion has to be restarted from the beginning. I am sorry to have those who participated in the discussion express their opinions again.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 01:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
A draft, Draft:Dirichlet character, was submitted for review. However, it seems to be a modified version of the article that we already have, Dirichlet character, and Articles for Creation is not the way to propose changes to an existing article. I don't know whether it will be obvious to a mathematician what has changed, let alone whether the changes should be made. I just thought I would call this to your-all's attention. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
For example, I would like some advice about
Function of several complex variables#top. I'm wondering whether to make it "any" or "arbitrary". "any" seems to have a similar meaning to "for all" and has been used for one variable (also, "every" was often used) , but several complex variable textbooks and papers often use "arbitrary", so only use for , "arbitrary". Because it feels like arbitrary is randomly selected. There is also an arbitrary complex manifold
, but I follow the paper because for several complex variables their nature depends on how the space is taken anyway. Perhaps this is also useful when editing other articles, and I don't understand this well. thanks!--
SilverMatsu (
talk)
06:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
English-speaking mathematicians use "any" too much. They forget that in some contexts, it means "some" rather than "every". "If every A is B then...." is clear. "If any A is B then..." might mean "If there is any A that is B, then..." or it might mean "If it is the case that any A, no matter which one, is B, then..." In the first case, it means "some"; in the second, it means "every". Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I've submitted a feature request on Phabricator for continuous numbering and cross-referencing of list items. The request itself concerns example numbering in linguistics articles, but I suspect this functionality would be useful for theorem numbering in mathematics articles as well. If you would support this idea or if you would like to add anything to the feature request, you can leave a comment at the Phabricator page. Alternately, if anybody has any handy tricks or secret workarounds using currently existing features, please do share! Botterweg14 ( talk) 15:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Popular pages-- Coin945 ( talk) 07:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Polar coordinate system 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. Z1720 ( talk) 14:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Members of this project may find Talk:Trapezium and Trapezoid#Requested move 21 June 2021 interesting.-- Eostrix ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
A RM was started at Talk:Indecomposable; discuss there if interested. (I'm posting a notice here since it's about mathematics but is not in the article alerts.) Adumbrativus ( talk) 07:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Oka calls Levi problem. problème inverse de Hartogs
. Hartogs shows Oka's lemma in the case of two variables, which is Hartogs's problem, and Levi's problem is the opposite. And the problem of Levi problem has various meanings now. (e.g. Stein manifold, Complex projective space, Stein space, etc.) Oka's proof is an unramified Riemann domain (), so this term may also accurately refer to Oka's achievements. thanks!--
SilverMatsu (
talk)
16:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I added it to Oka's lemma because there is an aspect that Oka called it. Would you like to redirect to Oka's lemma lemma?-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 02:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Addendum 1; Perhaps the decision to create a redirect depends on how English-speaking mathematicians often call Levi's problem. From the same point of view, we can decide whether to send the Draft:Gaussian symbol to MfD vs. RfD.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 03:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Addendum 2; For drafts, it seems that in some countries the symbol representing the floor function is called the Gaussian symbol, and if English-speaking mathematicians do not use this term often or use it in a different sense, send it to MfD.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 07:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that the draft:Gaussian symbol was translated from Chinese wikipedia, so check Babel and ping MarkH21.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 02:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)I would like to some advice about the edit warring. I tried to avoid the Euler product argument when it was Re(s) = 1. thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 10:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I forgot to write a set. perhaps, If P is the set of all prime numbers and the prime number set (set P) is finite set …-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 11:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article Dirichlet character.
A number of years ago I edited several number theory articles including Quadratic reciprocity, Arithmetic function, and Floor and ceiling functions under the name Virginia-American. The computer died, I lost my password, etc., and finally now I'm back under a new handle.
Could someone who knows the conventions please add categories, ratings, and so forth?
Thanks
James in dc (
talk)
21:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
In many articles concerning the mathematical field of computability theory, I propose changing the terminology from "recursive X" to "computable X". For example:
I have two reasons for this proposal:
There are plenty of pages which use the outdated terminology, such as recursively enumerable set, recursive ordinal, forcing (recursion theory) and index set (recursion theory). I would rename these to computably enumerable set, computable ordinal, forcing (computability) and index set (computability) respectively.
Note: I am not proposing this change for every instance of the word "recursive". For instance, I would keep primitive recursive and Kleene's recursion theorem as they are, as those are still the popular names for those concepts.
-- Jordan Mitchell Barrett ( talk) 05:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Researchers in the subject have recently changed the the name of the subject from “Recursion Theory” to “Computability Theory” in order to make clear this distinction [in meaning between the terms]. Thus, the term “recursive” no longer carries the additional meaning of “computable” or “decidable,” as it once did. This reinforces the original meaning of “recursive” and induction as understood by Dedekind, Peano, Hilbert, Skolem, Godel ... and by most modern computer scientists, mathematicians, and physical scientists. Presently, if functions are defined, or sets are enumerated, or relative computability is defined using Turing machines, register machines, or variants of these ... then the name “computable” rather than “recursive” will be attached to the result, ... Thus, the terms “recursive” and “computable” have reacquired their traditional and original meanings, and those understood by most outsiders.
After the articles [Soare 1996] and [Soare 1999] on the history and scientific reasons for why we should use “computable” and not “recursive” to mean “calculable,” many authors changed terminology to have “recursive” mean only inductive and they introduced new terms such as “computably enumerable (c.e.)” to replace “recursively enumerable.” This helped lead to an increased awareness of the relationship of Turing computability to other areas. There sprang up organizations like Computability in Europe (CiE) which developed these relationships.
Things started to change in earnest around 1995–96. These changes were rooted in two seemingly unrelated developments, one philosophical and political in content, and the other technical. The first involved a deliberate attempt to reinstate Turing’s terminology in keeping with the subject’s origins in real world questions — ‘computable’ in place of ‘recursive’ etc. — a project outlined in Robert Soare’s 1996 paper on ‘Computability and recursion’.
Update: it seems there was consensus around some things, such as changing disambiguating parentheses in article titles from "(recursion theory)" to "(computability)". Hence, I've now moved Forcing (recursion theory) to Forcing (computability), and Index set (recursion theory) to Index set (computability). I tried to move Reduction (recursion theory) to Reduction (computability), but the latter is already a redirect to Reduction (complexity). In any case, it looks like Reduction (recursion theory) should be merged into Reduction (complexity), which I've proposed.
I'd still like to move the following articles:
My reasons are as stated above. My interpretation of the above discussion is that I have support from Trovatore and David Eppstein, with some disagreement from D.Lazard (who still hasn't responded after I provided sources witnessing the change in terminology). I would appreciate input from other editors on whether they support or oppose such changes.
For now, I don't think we should move Recursive language, as this concept seems more in the realm of theoretical CS, where they may use different terminology. Then again, maybe Decidable language is a more common name? -- Jordan Mitchell Barrett ( talk) 01:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
For your information, user:Cewbot has been removing vital-article templates from the talk pages of these renamed articles. I suspect that that is a mistake. JRSpriggs ( talk) 18:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I know a number of you have done great work in saving old math-related featured articles from being delisted at FAR. So I figured it might be useful to put together a list of old FAs within this project's scope that could be in danger of potentially losing their star, in the hope of getting them fixed up before somebody starts the formal delisting process. I've done that below; here are a few thoughts: 1) These articles are not all the same. Some may have no issues at all, while others may be practically unsalvageable. 2) You can read the featured article criteria here. While an FA must meet each criterion, in my experience the most important issue for these old FAs is referencing. Our expectations on inline citations have changed a lot over the past twenty years, so making sure that there aren't vast deserts of uncited text is really important. Fixing up any prose issues is also helpful, as is making sure that the article is still a comprehensive overview of the subject. 3) The year provided is the year of the most recent FAC or FAR. Older articles often require more work, but this is of course only a generalization. This list contains only articles that have not been reviewed in more than ten years. 4) If this sort of work interests you, please come help out at WP:URFA/2020. We have an enormous backlog of old featured articles on all subjects that are in need of review.
Notice given: These are the most urgent priorities. Someone has made a note on the article's talk page that the article may not meet the featured article criteria. Such articles are in danger of being imminently taken to FAR.
Notice not given: Notice has not yet been given for these articles, so they aren't urgent priorities. Just take a look and see if there are any obvious issues with them that need work. If you feel confident in your understanding of the featured article criteria, feel free to go to WP:URFA/2020 and follow the instructions to either give notice, mark the article as satisfactory, or provide other comments.
I hope this list is useful to you all. Getting these FAs taken care of outside the formal process is good for everyone: it reduces the URFA backlog, it gives you all advance notice of potential issues, and it provides an incentive to improve these important articles. Do let me know if I can be of any assistance: while my mathematical expertise is lacking, I'm glad to answer any questions about the FAR process. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Missing square puzzle 91,834 3,061 Start-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
By the way, can 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ⋯, 1/2 − 1/4 + 1/8 − 1/16 + ⋯ and 1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256 + ⋯ be merge? The alternating series are mixed, but I think there is no problem because it converges absolutely. How about the title, such as ′′Infinite sum of multiplicative inverse of Power of two′′?-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 12:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Leonhard Euler 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. ( t · c) buidhe 04:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
There's a sentence in the article that's confusing me, and I think here may be a better place than the FAR to get an informed opinion: In the applied mathematics section, it states "He also facilitated the use of differential equations, in particular introducing the Euler–Mascheroni constant". My understanding of the Euler–Mascheroni constant is that its primary use is as the constant error term in the approximation of the harmonic series by the logarithm (or, I suppose, vice versa, but that's the usual direction of approximation for me), and that it belongs more to the analysis or maybe analytic number theory sections than in a section on applied mathematics and a sentence on differential equations. But maybe there's an application of this constant to differential equations with which I'm unfamiliar and which the "Appearances" section of Euler–Mascheroni constant doesn't make clear? — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The article has been moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates section. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Found in new article queue. Please review and expand at your leisure. Many thanks. -- Gryllida ( talk, e-mail) 06:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
The proof of quadratic reciprocity given in Quadratic reciprocity#Proof is a blatant copyright violation: it is a verbatim copy (letter for letter, down to idiosyncracies in the notation) of almost the complete text (only omitting the initial sentence) of the paper Bogdan Veklych, A Minimalist Proof of the Law of Quadratic Reciprocity, The American Mathematical Monthly 126 (2019), no. 10, p. 928, doi: 10.1080/00029890.2019.1655331. (It’s a short paper.) I tried to remove it, but I am being reverted by user Strecosaurus ( talk · contribs), who hasn’t got the slightest clue about copyright law and scientific publishing (see talk), but is all the more aggressive for it. Can someone else have a look?— Emil J. 07:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, mathematicians! There's a discussion going on about what constitutes a "routine calculation", and I think it would benefit from your input. Please see Wikipedia talk:No original research.— S Marshall T/ C 17:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Retarget to Complex analysis, and with hatnote to Function of several complex variables. Also delete "Complex variables (disambiguation)". Also see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 5#Complex variables (disambiguation). thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 04:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, the discussion is invalid in Redirects for discussion (Complex variables (disambiguation)). Apparently, on this page or on the complex variable talk page, the discussion has to be restarted from the beginning. I am sorry to have those who participated in the discussion express their opinions again.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 01:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
A draft, Draft:Dirichlet character, was submitted for review. However, it seems to be a modified version of the article that we already have, Dirichlet character, and Articles for Creation is not the way to propose changes to an existing article. I don't know whether it will be obvious to a mathematician what has changed, let alone whether the changes should be made. I just thought I would call this to your-all's attention. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
For example, I would like some advice about
Function of several complex variables#top. I'm wondering whether to make it "any" or "arbitrary". "any" seems to have a similar meaning to "for all" and has been used for one variable (also, "every" was often used) , but several complex variable textbooks and papers often use "arbitrary", so only use for , "arbitrary". Because it feels like arbitrary is randomly selected. There is also an arbitrary complex manifold
, but I follow the paper because for several complex variables their nature depends on how the space is taken anyway. Perhaps this is also useful when editing other articles, and I don't understand this well. thanks!--
SilverMatsu (
talk)
06:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
English-speaking mathematicians use "any" too much. They forget that in some contexts, it means "some" rather than "every". "If every A is B then...." is clear. "If any A is B then..." might mean "If there is any A that is B, then..." or it might mean "If it is the case that any A, no matter which one, is B, then..." In the first case, it means "some"; in the second, it means "every". Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I've submitted a feature request on Phabricator for continuous numbering and cross-referencing of list items. The request itself concerns example numbering in linguistics articles, but I suspect this functionality would be useful for theorem numbering in mathematics articles as well. If you would support this idea or if you would like to add anything to the feature request, you can leave a comment at the Phabricator page. Alternately, if anybody has any handy tricks or secret workarounds using currently existing features, please do share! Botterweg14 ( talk) 15:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Popular pages-- Coin945 ( talk) 07:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Polar coordinate system 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. Z1720 ( talk) 14:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Members of this project may find Talk:Trapezium and Trapezoid#Requested move 21 June 2021 interesting.-- Eostrix ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
A RM was started at Talk:Indecomposable; discuss there if interested. (I'm posting a notice here since it's about mathematics but is not in the article alerts.) Adumbrativus ( talk) 07:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Oka calls Levi problem. problème inverse de Hartogs
. Hartogs shows Oka's lemma in the case of two variables, which is Hartogs's problem, and Levi's problem is the opposite. And the problem of Levi problem has various meanings now. (e.g. Stein manifold, Complex projective space, Stein space, etc.) Oka's proof is an unramified Riemann domain (), so this term may also accurately refer to Oka's achievements. thanks!--
SilverMatsu (
talk)
16:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I added it to Oka's lemma because there is an aspect that Oka called it. Would you like to redirect to Oka's lemma lemma?-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 02:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Addendum 1; Perhaps the decision to create a redirect depends on how English-speaking mathematicians often call Levi's problem. From the same point of view, we can decide whether to send the Draft:Gaussian symbol to MfD vs. RfD.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 03:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Addendum 2; For drafts, it seems that in some countries the symbol representing the floor function is called the Gaussian symbol, and if English-speaking mathematicians do not use this term often or use it in a different sense, send it to MfD.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 07:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that the draft:Gaussian symbol was translated from Chinese wikipedia, so check Babel and ping MarkH21.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 02:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)I would like to some advice about the edit warring. I tried to avoid the Euler product argument when it was Re(s) = 1. thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 10:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I forgot to write a set. perhaps, If P is the set of all prime numbers and the prime number set (set P) is finite set …-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 11:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article Dirichlet character.
A number of years ago I edited several number theory articles including Quadratic reciprocity, Arithmetic function, and Floor and ceiling functions under the name Virginia-American. The computer died, I lost my password, etc., and finally now I'm back under a new handle.
Could someone who knows the conventions please add categories, ratings, and so forth?
Thanks
James in dc (
talk)
21:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).