I was confused about the redirect f(x). (About the ambiguity that appears at the beginning of the function article by redirecting to the function.) The girls group seems like Abelian groups, Lie groups and Galois groups, but they were actually music artists. Personally, I think the function is just f. We might think this is a Dynamics (music) forte. I would like to know what kind of rules an artist has when he uses the theorems and symbols that are often used in mathematics as a respect for mathematics. (This is a rule about article names on wikipedia. Duplicate with the following sentence) If artists add the theorems and symbols commonly used in mathematics to their group (does not Group (mathematics)) names as a respect for mathematics, do they need to be reflected in mathematics articles?-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 22:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the corresponding talk page, it seems good to move if there is no problem from the viewpoint of mathematics. The f (x) link doesn't seem to be a problem either. Therefore, if there is no objection on this page(discussion), it seems good to move.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 07:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I started the discussion. The article itself doesn't seem to be related to mathematics, but you might be interested in discussing the meaning of f (x).-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 11:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a complex variable in Talk:Complex analysis and has been discussed. For the one complex variable, it seems like a section redirect to Complex functions(in complex analysis), then, the pair seems like Functions of several complex variables. Also, the article names of Several real variables are Function of several real variables. thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 04:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
theory of functions of a complex variableis bolded as an alternative term in the first sentence at Complex analysis. I would also retarget Real variables → Function of several real variables. — MarkH21 talk 06:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Function theory of several complex variables? Function theory is the traditional name for complex analysis. But I'm a worried that the meaning of this name is too narrow.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 15:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Functions of several complx variables. Users searching for Several complex variables seem to be looking into what several complex variables mean, and
Functions of several complex variablesis the concise answer (IMO). It is true that this field is called several complex variables as a branch of complex analysis, but I'm not trying to change Category:Several complex variables.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 01:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
to limit oneself to the study of one complex variable is to do complex analysis with one eye closed, so it seems too narrow to limit complex analysis to one variable. but, this does not seem to affect the redirect target. One complex variable seems to be a classical complex analysis.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 15:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
amendment:How about turning Several complex variables into Several complex variables (DAB) pages instead of redirects?-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 15:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Currently, the lead sentence is In complex analysis, the theory of functions of several complex variables is the branch of mathematics dealing with complex-valued functions in the space of n-tuples of complex numbers
, and especially the the theory of functions of several complex variables is the branch of mathematics
part has not changed from the beginning. To be clear, the bold part was initially only the several complex variables. This was one of the reasons I support to functions of several complex variables as the article name, but if the article name doesn't change, it seems like the lead sentence needs to be improved a bit.--
SilverMatsu (
talk)
15:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
See Function of several complex variables. I'll ask if there was a consensus.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 20:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The article on groups is currently undergoing a featured article review, [ here]. In the course of that, it was requested to add references for some statements. I have currently very little time and didn't find immediately one, can anyone help out here, please? thanks a lot (either include the references directly in the article and reply to the requests [ here] or tell me and I can add them). Thanks a lot!
Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 19:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Does the team agree that the correct way to read is "x naught"
as claimed in
this edit?
Certes (
talk)
23:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
05:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
aleph-nought, also aleph-zero or aleph-nullso (if we can treat x as a placeholder for ) I don't think we can say "x naught" is the correct way (my emphasis). Certes ( talk) 12:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
noughty noughty. -- JBL ( talk) 13:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Is it related to Convex analysis? It didn't seem to me to be related, but I wasn't studying enough so I thought I'd ask the community a question.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 12:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I thought of a short explanation of the same article.
Writing both is probably too long. thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 11:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
It's my first time to add it to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics, so I thought I'd ask before adding it. I've added citations from there several times, but I don't have enough French ability to write the article (Numdam?) myself. (cf. fr:Numérisation de documents anciens mathématiques maybe… ) thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 05:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if this doesn't come up, but it seems like the math articles are particularly low on value to readers not well versed in mathematical symbols. As a programmer I find these symbols looks impressive and cryptic, but rewritten in computer language style code can appear very trivial and unimpressive and hence easier to grasp, since computer language works with only a few rudimentary symbols instead of abstract levels of arbitrary symbols. All I'm saying is Wikipedia could be a great resource to teach math concepts if it did this I think, and programmers could benefit from being able to easily use math concepts in their work without deciphering them like hieroglyphics first -- 72.173.4.14 ( talk) 10:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Could somebody please have a look at the dispute Talk:Ugly_duckling_theorem#Countable_set_of_objects_to_which_the_Ugly_duckling_theorem_applies and help to settle it? The controversy is whether the Ugly duckling theorem applies to a finite number n of objects or to a countably infinite number n. Many thanks in advance. - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 12:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The ugly duckling theorem was derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969 in the publication "Knowing and Guessing: A Quantitative Study of Inference and Information". It is a part of a chapter "Logic and Probability" (begins at p. 299). In Section 7.3. of this chapter ("Formal Concept of Probability") on p. 336 he writes:
"We consider a set of objects (…). The number of ’s in may be finite, countably (enumerably) infinite, or continuously many.”
Then in Section 7.6 "Theorem of the Ugly Duckling" on p. 376 he proceeds to derive his theorem writing, among others:
"The purposes of this section is to show that from the formal point of view there exist no such thing as a class of similar objects in the world"
He provides an instructive comment also in p. 5 (my emphasis added):
"In the following we usually discuss the case in which , the number of elements in a logical spectrum, is finite. Many of the results obtained will remain valid for the case in which is countably many (enumerably infinite), although they sometimes break down when becomes continuously many.”
This theorem is 52 years old, indeed. But his author derived it for enumerably (countably) infinite set of objects. This is not an extension of this theorem. This is the theorem itself.
If you want to derive your own similar theorem(s), within the ordinal numbers domain, for example, by all means please do.
But this article is about the original Satosi Watanabe ugly duckling theorem derived in 1969. Guswen ( talk) 16:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Precisely. There is the Ugly duckling theorem Wikipedia article, that is supposedly about the original Satosi Watanabe ugly duckling theorem derived in 1969. But the subject of this article, as you correctly mentions, erroneously states that it is a theorem about finite collections. It is not. Satosi Watanabe derived his own theorem in 1969 for enumerably (countably) infinite set of objects.
Therefore, this article requires appropriate correction to reflect the intentions, but more importantly derivations, of the author of this theorem. This Wikipedia article itself states that "It [the ugly duckling theorem] was derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969."
Perhaps you would like to write your own Wikipedia article entitled "A version of the ugly duckling theorem for ordinal numbers", or similarly. But then (1) derive this extensional theorem, (2) peer-review it, (3) wait until the concept matures, and eventually (4) write this new Wikipedia article. I will keep my thumbs up for such an endeavor of yours.
For now, we're discussing the original Satosi Watanabe ugly duckling theorem that his own author derived for enumerably (countably) infinite set of objects. Your saying "of Watanabe or of Woodward or of someone else" is not only disrespectful to Satosi Watanabe. It also means that you do not understand this theorem.
Guswen ( talk) 18:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Let us then wait for a few days for some external feedback and then we will have to correct this article to reflect the author of this theorem ( Satosi Watanabe) derivations. Guswen ( talk) 21:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there anyone good with illustrations? I am currently brushing over determinant, and I'd like to include a few illustrations explaining the basic properties of the determinant of 2 x 2 matrices. We do have a few files along the lines I am thinking about in commons ( [2]), such as the one here, but these also have a few shortcomings, and not everything I'd like to illustrate is there.
If anyone is good at illustrations and is willing to help out, please ping me and I will elaborate further. Thanks a lot. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 18:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
There seem to be two versions; the theorem on increasing sequences of domain of holomorphy and pseudoconvex domain (1939 or 1938), also the theorem claiming that the concatenated non-compact Riemann surface is a Stein manifold (1948).-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 14:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
A recently concluded AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigantic prime, was closed as 'redirect to megaprime', and following the general sentiment there I began a related AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titanic prime. In it, D.Lazard has proposed that we merge all treatments of ranges of large prime numbers with the current treatment of largest prime number into a comprehensive article, the not-yet-extant large prime number.
I've created a topic on an article talk page for more specific discussion about what to do with these pages at Talk:Largest known prime number#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titanic prime and the large prime number article proposal. Since this affects a fair few maths articles, SilverMatsu pointed out that it would be good to advertise this discussion here. The search for large primes is one of the more media-friendly parts of maths, so this could be an effort with more than usually observable impact for us. — Charles Stewart (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I've been involved in a rather one-sided discussion (that is, with almost nobody but me) at Talk:Gamma distribution#Median of the gamma distribution for about 2 years now. I could use a second and third opinion. My contribution to the problem was to do some original research and get it peer reviewed and published. Maybe someone will say yes or no to us using it in the article now. (Please excuse the cross-posting with WikiProject Statistics.) Dicklyon ( talk) 22:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Before we talked about blackboard bold in the style manual, but the blackboard bold article still seems to explain not to use blackboard bold except on the blackboard. Do we improve the article?-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 15:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
the blackboard bold article still seems to explain not to use blackboard bold except on the blackboardThe article Blackboard bold is not an instruction manual, and it also does not say what you've said. You should of course feel free to improve any article on Wikipedia; for the particular article Blackboard bold, the best way to improve it would be to find reliable sources that discuss it (rather than, as is currently the case, a bunch of primary sourced claims that various individual books or authors happened to use or not use it in various contexts). -- JBL ( talk) 15:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
There is an edit war in which I am implied at Flat module. Help would be welcome. D.Lazard ( talk) 07:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. There are a few mathematics-related disambiguation pages that have attracted some links that need fixing: total relation (18 links), boundedness (10 links), and minimal prime (3 links). Is there a mathematician who feels like tackling some of these? Thanks in advance! Lennart97 ( talk) 10:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I would like to propose a standardized template for mathematical propositions and results (theorems, conjectures, axioms, lemmas, etc.). It should contain, in the very least, the following:
We can take cues from existing templates before submitting to WP:RT. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by François Robere ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, id seems to be obsolete and should be replaced with title name, the Canonical name should remove the space from the title name. Would anyone edit it directly or create a bot? thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 06:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The priority of the article Transfinite number was last assessed in 2008, when it was lowered from High to Low. Its class was changed from Stub to Start in 2018. I think that the low priority assessment was at least partly based on the poor quality. The quality still leaves room for improvement, but shouldn't its priority be higher? Based on my feeling that the subject is "a must-have for a print encyclopedia", combined with the criteria of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria § WikiProject priority assessments, I wonder if its importance should in fact not be rated as Top . (I have more problems applying this WikiProject's own priority rating scheme, as I think the criteria as presented there cannot be applied to a subject in isolation, but only to an article as a node contextualized in an everchanging web, and seem to be more coupled to an article's quality than is desirable for a supposedly independent parameter.) -- Lambiam 08:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I've added ratings to hundreds if not thousands of math articles. That one strikes me as "low", or "mid" at most. (It's currently marked "high") Why? It is providing a a definition for a historical term that has kind of fallen by the wayside. The definition is not particularly complex or important. "High" is usually something reserved for something important that school students would study or need to know. This is not that. I agree with Trovatore that if it had more history-of-math to it, it would be mid.
BTW, @ XOR'easter: removed a section called "wolfram spam", but the removed material predates wolfram by at least 5 decades. It is covered in J.H. Conways book On Numbers and Games but I'm fairly certain it predates Conway, as he seems to be recaptulating known results. However, I'm not restoring that content, because I don't think it belongs in this article anyway. (I don't know where it belongs). 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 23:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector 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. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I was confused about the redirect f(x). (About the ambiguity that appears at the beginning of the function article by redirecting to the function.) The girls group seems like Abelian groups, Lie groups and Galois groups, but they were actually music artists. Personally, I think the function is just f. We might think this is a Dynamics (music) forte. I would like to know what kind of rules an artist has when he uses the theorems and symbols that are often used in mathematics as a respect for mathematics. (This is a rule about article names on wikipedia. Duplicate with the following sentence) If artists add the theorems and symbols commonly used in mathematics to their group (does not Group (mathematics)) names as a respect for mathematics, do they need to be reflected in mathematics articles?-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 22:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the corresponding talk page, it seems good to move if there is no problem from the viewpoint of mathematics. The f (x) link doesn't seem to be a problem either. Therefore, if there is no objection on this page(discussion), it seems good to move.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 07:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I started the discussion. The article itself doesn't seem to be related to mathematics, but you might be interested in discussing the meaning of f (x).-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 11:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a complex variable in Talk:Complex analysis and has been discussed. For the one complex variable, it seems like a section redirect to Complex functions(in complex analysis), then, the pair seems like Functions of several complex variables. Also, the article names of Several real variables are Function of several real variables. thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 04:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
theory of functions of a complex variableis bolded as an alternative term in the first sentence at Complex analysis. I would also retarget Real variables → Function of several real variables. — MarkH21 talk 06:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Function theory of several complex variables? Function theory is the traditional name for complex analysis. But I'm a worried that the meaning of this name is too narrow.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 15:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Functions of several complx variables. Users searching for Several complex variables seem to be looking into what several complex variables mean, and
Functions of several complex variablesis the concise answer (IMO). It is true that this field is called several complex variables as a branch of complex analysis, but I'm not trying to change Category:Several complex variables.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 01:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
to limit oneself to the study of one complex variable is to do complex analysis with one eye closed, so it seems too narrow to limit complex analysis to one variable. but, this does not seem to affect the redirect target. One complex variable seems to be a classical complex analysis.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 15:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
amendment:How about turning Several complex variables into Several complex variables (DAB) pages instead of redirects?-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 15:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Currently, the lead sentence is In complex analysis, the theory of functions of several complex variables is the branch of mathematics dealing with complex-valued functions in the space of n-tuples of complex numbers
, and especially the the theory of functions of several complex variables is the branch of mathematics
part has not changed from the beginning. To be clear, the bold part was initially only the several complex variables. This was one of the reasons I support to functions of several complex variables as the article name, but if the article name doesn't change, it seems like the lead sentence needs to be improved a bit.--
SilverMatsu (
talk)
15:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
See Function of several complex variables. I'll ask if there was a consensus.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 20:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The article on groups is currently undergoing a featured article review, [ here]. In the course of that, it was requested to add references for some statements. I have currently very little time and didn't find immediately one, can anyone help out here, please? thanks a lot (either include the references directly in the article and reply to the requests [ here] or tell me and I can add them). Thanks a lot!
Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 19:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Does the team agree that the correct way to read is "x naught"
as claimed in
this edit?
Certes (
talk)
23:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
05:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
aleph-nought, also aleph-zero or aleph-nullso (if we can treat x as a placeholder for ) I don't think we can say "x naught" is the correct way (my emphasis). Certes ( talk) 12:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
noughty noughty. -- JBL ( talk) 13:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Is it related to Convex analysis? It didn't seem to me to be related, but I wasn't studying enough so I thought I'd ask the community a question.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 12:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
By the way, I thought of a short explanation of the same article.
Writing both is probably too long. thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 11:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
It's my first time to add it to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Mathematics, so I thought I'd ask before adding it. I've added citations from there several times, but I don't have enough French ability to write the article (Numdam?) myself. (cf. fr:Numérisation de documents anciens mathématiques maybe… ) thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 05:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if this doesn't come up, but it seems like the math articles are particularly low on value to readers not well versed in mathematical symbols. As a programmer I find these symbols looks impressive and cryptic, but rewritten in computer language style code can appear very trivial and unimpressive and hence easier to grasp, since computer language works with only a few rudimentary symbols instead of abstract levels of arbitrary symbols. All I'm saying is Wikipedia could be a great resource to teach math concepts if it did this I think, and programmers could benefit from being able to easily use math concepts in their work without deciphering them like hieroglyphics first -- 72.173.4.14 ( talk) 10:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Could somebody please have a look at the dispute Talk:Ugly_duckling_theorem#Countable_set_of_objects_to_which_the_Ugly_duckling_theorem_applies and help to settle it? The controversy is whether the Ugly duckling theorem applies to a finite number n of objects or to a countably infinite number n. Many thanks in advance. - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 12:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The ugly duckling theorem was derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969 in the publication "Knowing and Guessing: A Quantitative Study of Inference and Information". It is a part of a chapter "Logic and Probability" (begins at p. 299). In Section 7.3. of this chapter ("Formal Concept of Probability") on p. 336 he writes:
"We consider a set of objects (…). The number of ’s in may be finite, countably (enumerably) infinite, or continuously many.”
Then in Section 7.6 "Theorem of the Ugly Duckling" on p. 376 he proceeds to derive his theorem writing, among others:
"The purposes of this section is to show that from the formal point of view there exist no such thing as a class of similar objects in the world"
He provides an instructive comment also in p. 5 (my emphasis added):
"In the following we usually discuss the case in which , the number of elements in a logical spectrum, is finite. Many of the results obtained will remain valid for the case in which is countably many (enumerably infinite), although they sometimes break down when becomes continuously many.”
This theorem is 52 years old, indeed. But his author derived it for enumerably (countably) infinite set of objects. This is not an extension of this theorem. This is the theorem itself.
If you want to derive your own similar theorem(s), within the ordinal numbers domain, for example, by all means please do.
But this article is about the original Satosi Watanabe ugly duckling theorem derived in 1969. Guswen ( talk) 16:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Precisely. There is the Ugly duckling theorem Wikipedia article, that is supposedly about the original Satosi Watanabe ugly duckling theorem derived in 1969. But the subject of this article, as you correctly mentions, erroneously states that it is a theorem about finite collections. It is not. Satosi Watanabe derived his own theorem in 1969 for enumerably (countably) infinite set of objects.
Therefore, this article requires appropriate correction to reflect the intentions, but more importantly derivations, of the author of this theorem. This Wikipedia article itself states that "It [the ugly duckling theorem] was derived by Satosi Watanabe in 1969."
Perhaps you would like to write your own Wikipedia article entitled "A version of the ugly duckling theorem for ordinal numbers", or similarly. But then (1) derive this extensional theorem, (2) peer-review it, (3) wait until the concept matures, and eventually (4) write this new Wikipedia article. I will keep my thumbs up for such an endeavor of yours.
For now, we're discussing the original Satosi Watanabe ugly duckling theorem that his own author derived for enumerably (countably) infinite set of objects. Your saying "of Watanabe or of Woodward or of someone else" is not only disrespectful to Satosi Watanabe. It also means that you do not understand this theorem.
Guswen ( talk) 18:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Let us then wait for a few days for some external feedback and then we will have to correct this article to reflect the author of this theorem ( Satosi Watanabe) derivations. Guswen ( talk) 21:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there anyone good with illustrations? I am currently brushing over determinant, and I'd like to include a few illustrations explaining the basic properties of the determinant of 2 x 2 matrices. We do have a few files along the lines I am thinking about in commons ( [2]), such as the one here, but these also have a few shortcomings, and not everything I'd like to illustrate is there.
If anyone is good at illustrations and is willing to help out, please ping me and I will elaborate further. Thanks a lot. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 18:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
There seem to be two versions; the theorem on increasing sequences of domain of holomorphy and pseudoconvex domain (1939 or 1938), also the theorem claiming that the concatenated non-compact Riemann surface is a Stein manifold (1948).-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 14:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
A recently concluded AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigantic prime, was closed as 'redirect to megaprime', and following the general sentiment there I began a related AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titanic prime. In it, D.Lazard has proposed that we merge all treatments of ranges of large prime numbers with the current treatment of largest prime number into a comprehensive article, the not-yet-extant large prime number.
I've created a topic on an article talk page for more specific discussion about what to do with these pages at Talk:Largest known prime number#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titanic prime and the large prime number article proposal. Since this affects a fair few maths articles, SilverMatsu pointed out that it would be good to advertise this discussion here. The search for large primes is one of the more media-friendly parts of maths, so this could be an effort with more than usually observable impact for us. — Charles Stewart (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I've been involved in a rather one-sided discussion (that is, with almost nobody but me) at Talk:Gamma distribution#Median of the gamma distribution for about 2 years now. I could use a second and third opinion. My contribution to the problem was to do some original research and get it peer reviewed and published. Maybe someone will say yes or no to us using it in the article now. (Please excuse the cross-posting with WikiProject Statistics.) Dicklyon ( talk) 22:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Before we talked about blackboard bold in the style manual, but the blackboard bold article still seems to explain not to use blackboard bold except on the blackboard. Do we improve the article?-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 15:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
the blackboard bold article still seems to explain not to use blackboard bold except on the blackboardThe article Blackboard bold is not an instruction manual, and it also does not say what you've said. You should of course feel free to improve any article on Wikipedia; for the particular article Blackboard bold, the best way to improve it would be to find reliable sources that discuss it (rather than, as is currently the case, a bunch of primary sourced claims that various individual books or authors happened to use or not use it in various contexts). -- JBL ( talk) 15:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
There is an edit war in which I am implied at Flat module. Help would be welcome. D.Lazard ( talk) 07:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi. There are a few mathematics-related disambiguation pages that have attracted some links that need fixing: total relation (18 links), boundedness (10 links), and minimal prime (3 links). Is there a mathematician who feels like tackling some of these? Thanks in advance! Lennart97 ( talk) 10:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I would like to propose a standardized template for mathematical propositions and results (theorems, conjectures, axioms, lemmas, etc.). It should contain, in the very least, the following:
We can take cues from existing templates before submitting to WP:RT. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by François Robere ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, id seems to be obsolete and should be replaced with title name, the Canonical name should remove the space from the title name. Would anyone edit it directly or create a bot? thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 06:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The priority of the article Transfinite number was last assessed in 2008, when it was lowered from High to Low. Its class was changed from Stub to Start in 2018. I think that the low priority assessment was at least partly based on the poor quality. The quality still leaves room for improvement, but shouldn't its priority be higher? Based on my feeling that the subject is "a must-have for a print encyclopedia", combined with the criteria of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria § WikiProject priority assessments, I wonder if its importance should in fact not be rated as Top . (I have more problems applying this WikiProject's own priority rating scheme, as I think the criteria as presented there cannot be applied to a subject in isolation, but only to an article as a node contextualized in an everchanging web, and seem to be more coupled to an article's quality than is desirable for a supposedly independent parameter.) -- Lambiam 08:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I've added ratings to hundreds if not thousands of math articles. That one strikes me as "low", or "mid" at most. (It's currently marked "high") Why? It is providing a a definition for a historical term that has kind of fallen by the wayside. The definition is not particularly complex or important. "High" is usually something reserved for something important that school students would study or need to know. This is not that. I agree with Trovatore that if it had more history-of-math to it, it would be mid.
BTW, @ XOR'easter: removed a section called "wolfram spam", but the removed material predates wolfram by at least 5 decades. It is covered in J.H. Conways book On Numbers and Games but I'm fairly certain it predates Conway, as he seems to be recaptulating known results. However, I'm not restoring that content, because I don't think it belongs in this article anyway. (I don't know where it belongs). 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 23:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector 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. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)