See Talk:Ohsawa–Takegoshi theorem. thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 03:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Darcourse is a long-time editor of mathematics articles. Recently I had the bad experience of checking a chunk of their edits at Derangement. As you can see in the article history, in my view their changes made the article worse in a wide variety of ways, and I essentially undid all of them. I have serious qualms about the quality of their edits to other articles, but limited time and patience to check them. While I wouldn't recommend blanket reversion, I would encourage other editors to keep an eye on any edits from Darcourse that touch articles of interest or importance. -- JBL ( talk) 11:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Is it Square-free integer or Square-free number? The page is being renamed and moved. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Would someone from the Mathematics project please have a look at the last few days of edits to Volume of an n-ball? Guswen has made a number of changes, including a negative-dimension recurrence relation, that I am quite skeptical of the utility of. - Parejkoj ( talk) 17:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The symbol of the shuffle product is the Cyrillic letter ш (sha), and should be implemented in latex as \sha. This is lacking in our implementation. This leads, in our articles, to have awful formulas in raw html, and, in formulas that must be in latex, to use a non standard synbol such as (see Tensor product § Coproduct).
Please, can somebody (who knows how to proceed) ask for fixing this issue. D.Lazard ( talk) 13:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
A few formulae in De Moivre's formula are displayed wrong for me, for instance
I'm using Chrome on Windows 10.
It looks like the SVG produced is fine - but when it is shrunk some of the lines disappear.
If I use Wikipedia to display that as a thumbnail the formula is fine even though it is much smaller! If however that SVG is downloaded and then displayed by itself in Chrome it is messed up.
I guess the problem is in Chrome since Wikipedia can shrink it nicely but should I pass this to someome here or any idea of where or how to report it?
NadVolum ( talk) 15:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I was wondering if these two tables should be merged into one list article in some way -- after all, all known perfect numbers correspond to Mersenne primes and vice versa, and several columns are exactly the same between the two articles outside of the first few rows (rank, p, discovered, discoverer). My only concern is that the table could become too wide, but that could be rectified by shortening the number of digits shown on the big ones (don't think we necessarily need both the first and last 12 digits of every one..) Thoughts? (If there's consensus, I can start writing it myself.) Thanks, eviolite (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
So while I was looking at mathematics education articles, I stumbled across the article Cognitively Guided Instruction, which was written in 2007 and has hardly been touched since. All its references are written by a single group of authors. I would welcome input on the question of whether this is a notable thing (studied by multiple groups, subject of sources not written by its inventors) whose article is poor but could be improved, or alternatively whether the current article reflects the best possible sourcing (in which case the article should probably be deleted). (I also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education.) -- JBL ( talk) 11:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Can someone knowledgeable enough take a look at this article, parts of it are written in an unencyclopedic way using phrasing such as "we use" etc. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 12:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Currently, calculus education, geometry education, and algebra education are all redlinks. I'm not sure what article (if any) those should redirect to. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
it doesn’t specifically discuss any of theseThat's ... not true. For example, a person looking for information about geometry education would find at Mathematics education some historical information, and would learn that geometry is taught both as an example of practical mathematics and as an example of an axiomatic system and a model for deductive reasoning, that it is conventionally introduced after arithmetic and alongside elementary algebra, and that in the US there is typically a year-long course focusing on geometry. (Is this enough material for a stand-alone article, or even a complete section? No, of course not. But is it enough to support a redirect? Sure.) -- JBL ( talk) 17:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I saw Mathematics education, but agree with jacobolus that it isn't currently a good redirect target. That said, it is used as one. While Precalculus has an article, Algebra I does not - that link currently goes to mathematics education but should probably retarget to Elementary algebra. There is certainly enough material published to have a section somewhere on each; I may just add those sections to Mathematics education. Is the quadratic equation taught before ring theory, and why? Should elementary algebra classes be taught to 11 year olds or 14 year olds? When did "algebra" first become part of the curriculum at schools like Eton College? These questions and more are surely discussed and of interest to encyclopedia readers. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
That's ... not true.
– Two or three scattered throw-away sentences is not a meaningful amount of content for someone curious about “geometry education” or “algebra education”. The math education article currently does not cover these in a meaningful way, and creating redirects for these would not provide value to Wikipedia. If you want to add a separate section with a few paragraphs summarizing one of these subjects, go right ahead; at that point, you could make a redirect. Alternately, go write a whole article at one of those pages. Even a few-paragraph stub would be much more useful than a redirect. Otherwise, discussing more here is a waste of time. –
jacobolus
(t) 01:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Is this enough material for a stand-alone article, or even a complete section? No, of course not.). I only have a quibble with the particular (false) claim
it doesn’t specifically discuss any of these. The reason that I object to that false claim is that it implies, incorrectly, that I didn't check whether geometry education etc. is mentioned in Mathematics education; whereas I did check to confirm that each of these topics is specifically mentioned there. I agree that further discussion of this point would be a waste of time, and I suggest that in the future you adopt a less aggressive tone (and particularly avoid saying false things aggressively) in order to avoid such pointless wastes of time. -- JBL ( talk) 20:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
see Talk:Coxeter–Dynkin_diagram#store_into_wikidata.
I would like to store Coxeter–Dynkin diagram into wikidata, but now Coxeter–Dynkin diagram is display by multiple images e.g. . wikidata doesn't support. (see d:Wikidata:Project_chat#datatype_for_en:Coxeter–Dynkin_diagram?)-- Nanachi 🐰 Fruit Tea☕(宇帆· ☎️· ☘️) 08:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
x3x4x . . . | 48 | 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 ------+----+----------+------- x . . | 2 | 24 * * | 1 1 0 . x . | 2 | * 24 * | 1 0 1 . . x | 2 | * * 24 | 0 1 1 ------+----+----------+------- x3x . | 6 | 3 3 0 | 8 * * x . x | 4 | 2 0 2 | * 12 * . x4x | 8 | 0 4 4 | * * 6
o3o3o *b5x
[3]. Does the description structures of (x5o3o *b3o
) and (o3o3o *b5x
) equal? I have the same question in {{
Octahedral truncations}}: for example, Coxeter diagram of
Cuboctahedron are , does it same with ? If it can be rotation, deformation or reflection, does it mean that and represent the same structure?--
Nanachi
🐰
Fruit Tea☕(宇帆·
☎️·
☘️) 15:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This deletion discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Mathbot, the bot which has been updating Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/List_of_mathematics_articles for some years now has been offline for some weeks now because changes on the Wikipedia server broke it. I am trying to move to the better-supported Pywikibot framework to avoid such issues in the future, but that is taking time.
Note sure if its work is still helpful. It used to be that mathematics editors would keep track of User:Mathbot/Changes to mathlists to see what new articles were added. Anyhow, today it made a big update to these lists. It won't be fully online for another week or two as there are still some more things to fix and test. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
See Lunar arithmetic. Does this article meet Wikipedia:Notability ?-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 07:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Is there something that I'm missing that distinguishes the two, or do we really have two different articles (both vital!) on the same topic, Platonic solid and regular polyhedron? — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
08:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I imagine that a page like List of mathematical series naturally tends to accumulate everybody's favorite series. Should we put some thought into what belongs and what can be trimmed? XOR'easter ( talk) 01:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia also functions as an almanac, so an article akin to the tables of series and integrals found in textbooks from the mid-20th century seems reasonable. I don't know how or whether we should require sourcing that the various entries are in fact often on that type of list. We certainly don't want everyone's favorite series; there must be some inclusion criteria. But I think "every entry must have a stand-alone article" is too much for that criterion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The continuous/negative-dimensional crank Guswen / Gus~plwiki is back at Volume of an n-ball; see recent edit history there as well as User talk:David Eppstein#Domain of applicability for n-ball volume and surface formulas. More eyes on that page would be helpful. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
See Talk:Ohsawa–Takegoshi theorem. thanks!-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 03:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Darcourse is a long-time editor of mathematics articles. Recently I had the bad experience of checking a chunk of their edits at Derangement. As you can see in the article history, in my view their changes made the article worse in a wide variety of ways, and I essentially undid all of them. I have serious qualms about the quality of their edits to other articles, but limited time and patience to check them. While I wouldn't recommend blanket reversion, I would encourage other editors to keep an eye on any edits from Darcourse that touch articles of interest or importance. -- JBL ( talk) 11:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Is it Square-free integer or Square-free number? The page is being renamed and moved. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Would someone from the Mathematics project please have a look at the last few days of edits to Volume of an n-ball? Guswen has made a number of changes, including a negative-dimension recurrence relation, that I am quite skeptical of the utility of. - Parejkoj ( talk) 17:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The symbol of the shuffle product is the Cyrillic letter ш (sha), and should be implemented in latex as \sha. This is lacking in our implementation. This leads, in our articles, to have awful formulas in raw html, and, in formulas that must be in latex, to use a non standard synbol such as (see Tensor product § Coproduct).
Please, can somebody (who knows how to proceed) ask for fixing this issue. D.Lazard ( talk) 13:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
A few formulae in De Moivre's formula are displayed wrong for me, for instance
I'm using Chrome on Windows 10.
It looks like the SVG produced is fine - but when it is shrunk some of the lines disappear.
If I use Wikipedia to display that as a thumbnail the formula is fine even though it is much smaller! If however that SVG is downloaded and then displayed by itself in Chrome it is messed up.
I guess the problem is in Chrome since Wikipedia can shrink it nicely but should I pass this to someome here or any idea of where or how to report it?
NadVolum ( talk) 15:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I was wondering if these two tables should be merged into one list article in some way -- after all, all known perfect numbers correspond to Mersenne primes and vice versa, and several columns are exactly the same between the two articles outside of the first few rows (rank, p, discovered, discoverer). My only concern is that the table could become too wide, but that could be rectified by shortening the number of digits shown on the big ones (don't think we necessarily need both the first and last 12 digits of every one..) Thoughts? (If there's consensus, I can start writing it myself.) Thanks, eviolite (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
So while I was looking at mathematics education articles, I stumbled across the article Cognitively Guided Instruction, which was written in 2007 and has hardly been touched since. All its references are written by a single group of authors. I would welcome input on the question of whether this is a notable thing (studied by multiple groups, subject of sources not written by its inventors) whose article is poor but could be improved, or alternatively whether the current article reflects the best possible sourcing (in which case the article should probably be deleted). (I also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education.) -- JBL ( talk) 11:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Can someone knowledgeable enough take a look at this article, parts of it are written in an unencyclopedic way using phrasing such as "we use" etc. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 12:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Currently, calculus education, geometry education, and algebra education are all redlinks. I'm not sure what article (if any) those should redirect to. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
it doesn’t specifically discuss any of theseThat's ... not true. For example, a person looking for information about geometry education would find at Mathematics education some historical information, and would learn that geometry is taught both as an example of practical mathematics and as an example of an axiomatic system and a model for deductive reasoning, that it is conventionally introduced after arithmetic and alongside elementary algebra, and that in the US there is typically a year-long course focusing on geometry. (Is this enough material for a stand-alone article, or even a complete section? No, of course not. But is it enough to support a redirect? Sure.) -- JBL ( talk) 17:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I saw Mathematics education, but agree with jacobolus that it isn't currently a good redirect target. That said, it is used as one. While Precalculus has an article, Algebra I does not - that link currently goes to mathematics education but should probably retarget to Elementary algebra. There is certainly enough material published to have a section somewhere on each; I may just add those sections to Mathematics education. Is the quadratic equation taught before ring theory, and why? Should elementary algebra classes be taught to 11 year olds or 14 year olds? When did "algebra" first become part of the curriculum at schools like Eton College? These questions and more are surely discussed and of interest to encyclopedia readers. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
That's ... not true.
– Two or three scattered throw-away sentences is not a meaningful amount of content for someone curious about “geometry education” or “algebra education”. The math education article currently does not cover these in a meaningful way, and creating redirects for these would not provide value to Wikipedia. If you want to add a separate section with a few paragraphs summarizing one of these subjects, go right ahead; at that point, you could make a redirect. Alternately, go write a whole article at one of those pages. Even a few-paragraph stub would be much more useful than a redirect. Otherwise, discussing more here is a waste of time. –
jacobolus
(t) 01:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Is this enough material for a stand-alone article, or even a complete section? No, of course not.). I only have a quibble with the particular (false) claim
it doesn’t specifically discuss any of these. The reason that I object to that false claim is that it implies, incorrectly, that I didn't check whether geometry education etc. is mentioned in Mathematics education; whereas I did check to confirm that each of these topics is specifically mentioned there. I agree that further discussion of this point would be a waste of time, and I suggest that in the future you adopt a less aggressive tone (and particularly avoid saying false things aggressively) in order to avoid such pointless wastes of time. -- JBL ( talk) 20:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
see Talk:Coxeter–Dynkin_diagram#store_into_wikidata.
I would like to store Coxeter–Dynkin diagram into wikidata, but now Coxeter–Dynkin diagram is display by multiple images e.g. . wikidata doesn't support. (see d:Wikidata:Project_chat#datatype_for_en:Coxeter–Dynkin_diagram?)-- Nanachi 🐰 Fruit Tea☕(宇帆· ☎️· ☘️) 08:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
x3x4x . . . | 48 | 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 ------+----+----------+------- x . . | 2 | 24 * * | 1 1 0 . x . | 2 | * 24 * | 1 0 1 . . x | 2 | * * 24 | 0 1 1 ------+----+----------+------- x3x . | 6 | 3 3 0 | 8 * * x . x | 4 | 2 0 2 | * 12 * . x4x | 8 | 0 4 4 | * * 6
o3o3o *b5x
[3]. Does the description structures of (x5o3o *b3o
) and (o3o3o *b5x
) equal? I have the same question in {{
Octahedral truncations}}: for example, Coxeter diagram of
Cuboctahedron are , does it same with ? If it can be rotation, deformation or reflection, does it mean that and represent the same structure?--
Nanachi
🐰
Fruit Tea☕(宇帆·
☎️·
☘️) 15:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This deletion discussion may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Mathbot, the bot which has been updating Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/List_of_mathematics_articles for some years now has been offline for some weeks now because changes on the Wikipedia server broke it. I am trying to move to the better-supported Pywikibot framework to avoid such issues in the future, but that is taking time.
Note sure if its work is still helpful. It used to be that mathematics editors would keep track of User:Mathbot/Changes to mathlists to see what new articles were added. Anyhow, today it made a big update to these lists. It won't be fully online for another week or two as there are still some more things to fix and test. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 03:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
See Lunar arithmetic. Does this article meet Wikipedia:Notability ?-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 07:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Is there something that I'm missing that distinguishes the two, or do we really have two different articles (both vital!) on the same topic, Platonic solid and regular polyhedron? — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
08:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I imagine that a page like List of mathematical series naturally tends to accumulate everybody's favorite series. Should we put some thought into what belongs and what can be trimmed? XOR'easter ( talk) 01:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia also functions as an almanac, so an article akin to the tables of series and integrals found in textbooks from the mid-20th century seems reasonable. I don't know how or whether we should require sourcing that the various entries are in fact often on that type of list. We certainly don't want everyone's favorite series; there must be some inclusion criteria. But I think "every entry must have a stand-alone article" is too much for that criterion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The continuous/negative-dimensional crank Guswen / Gus~plwiki is back at Volume of an n-ball; see recent edit history there as well as User talk:David Eppstein#Domain of applicability for n-ball volume and surface formulas. More eyes on that page would be helpful. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)