Some additional eyes would be generally appreciated at Original proof of Gödel's completeness theorem. There is some longer standing confusion about the argument itself, which is not helped by the fact that the article draws on none of the available secondary sources that are available on the topic. Felix QW ( talk) 16:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Contrast these:
I changed the former to the latter. Notice that (1) I expunged the bolding, (2) the k is italicized and the digit 1 is not (consistently with TeX and LaTeX style), (3) spacing before and after the minus sign (This is different in cases where a minus or a plus sign is used as a unary operator rather than as a binary operator. In those cases no such space is added. This is also consistent with what TeX and LaTeX do.) (4) the minus sign is not just a stubby little hyphen. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Contrast these:
Note that under WP:MOSMATH in this context one does not italicize digits or parentheses or other punctuation or things like cos, exp, det, max, sup, log, etc., but one italicizes variables. Note also that some space has been added between characters where appropriate. (Similarly, in the foregoing sentence I did not write "Notealsothatsomespacehasbeenaddedbetweencharacterswhereappropriate.") Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I just created a stub page for signed area which previously redirected to integral. This is a widely used concept which is not well described by integral and should have its own page (though it should probably eventually also be summarized in a section of area), so I created a stub for now with a basic definition.
I don't precisely know when I'll get around to expanding it, so other folks should feel free to jump in with any improvements or sources. – jacobolus (t) 18:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Hypercomputation needs attention. It starts to become a confusing read at the second sentence. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Two articles with substantial mathematical content are currently under consideration to become featured articles: they are Quine–Putnam indispensability argument and Affine symmetric group. (Currently, fewer than 10 articles on mathematics (as opposed to, say, mathematicians) are featured articles.) As part of the FAC process, reviews are required by members of the community. If you might be interested in reviewing one of these articles, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Commenting, etc. -- JBL ( talk) 17:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I've been working on articles about spherical geometry, cartography/geodesy, etc., and one common observation/tool used, especially in practical applications, is that in the infinitesimal limit the sphere (or any other 2-dimensional Riemannian manifold for that matter) looks locally Euclidean, so that tools of affine or Euclidean geometry can be used without too much error for small areas on the sphere, or e.g. a flat map of some part of the world can be treated as a faithful enough representation. Many theorems in Euclidean geometry are degenerate limiting cases of analogous theorems in spherical or hyperbolic geometry. This is a common theme more generally, with e.g. Taylor polynomials often used as function approximations for very small arguments in numerical computations. Right now the titles much greater than and much less than redirect to Inequality (mathematics), which (a) doesn't do a very good job explaining what these mean or why they are used, and (b) seems like the wrong home for these infinite or infinitesimal approximations. We also have Degeneracy (mathematics) and Limiting case (mathematics), but these both seem much broader than what I am talking about (and are also not very good articles). We also have Small-angle approximation which is one specific example but a bit narrower in scope than I am imagining. There is also Asymptotic analysis but this seems like a distinct (albeit related) topic.
Do we have an article matching this idea? If not, would it be a good idea to add one? (I would imagine e.g. redirecting much greater than and much less than there.) What would a good title be, and can anyone think of good canonical sources? – jacobolus (t) 23:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tercer ( talk) 13:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Is there any general guidance about whether a proof should be given for a result stated in an article? Thanks. ByVarying ( talk) 00:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Should I include a proof about the example of non-surjective epimorphism in the category of rings ? If we don't include the proof, this example might be better added to epimorphism. -- SilverMatsu ( talk) 02:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
On the page Projective tensor product, two sections, "Seminormed spaces" and "Examples" follow a book by Trèves on topological vector spaces very closely, basically all but verbatim. I also removed a lot from the page that I thought trivial or not notable, and these sections could very well fall under that too. I'm wondering what to do about these sections if anyone could give them a look. ByVarying ( talk) 19:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing ... when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate Wikipedia's copyright policy. ByVarying | talk 03:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Hilbert space is currently designated a Good article. The GA criteria were recently tightened to require more inline citations. It would be nice if we could address this before going through the whole rigmarole of a Good Article Review. Somebody with the right textbook on their shelf could probably go through and knock out most if not all of the required footnoting in a single pass. See the Talk page for details. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Affine symmetric group is at FAC and would benefit from someone familiar with this subject inputting on the sourcing. See the bottom of the page here. Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I have a concern about whether the name "Smith–Volterra–Cantor set" is in fact standard. I posted a note at talk:Smith–Volterra–Cantor set#Naming, but it's a low-traffic article and I don't really know whether anyone will notice it. Anyone who can contribute, it would be appreciated. -- Trovatore ( talk) 20:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I am having a dispute with an editor of Tree (set theory) who insists on adding a lead image that depicts a graph-theoretic tree, not a set-theoretic tree (the difference is that in graph-theoretic trees every node except the root has a parent, and following parent links will eventually reach the root, but in set-theoretic trees the ancestors of any node can have arbitrary well-orderings in which not all elements have a parent). Additional informed opinions would be very welcome at Talk:Tree (set theory) and in editing the article (or maybe finding or creating a more appropriate lead illustration). — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Should the title of this article be italicized? I forgot if every Latin term should be so, according to the guidelines.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 14:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Use italics when italics would be necessary in running text; for example, ... foreign phrases are italicized both in ordinary text and in article titles.— David Eppstein ( talk) 04:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I've promoted this from AFC. Its seems genuine and well referenced. I'm not a mathematician so I looked up some references to confirm its existance and to determine if there was an article on Wikipedia on the subject, but doesn't appear so. scope_creep Talk 06:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Algebraically inclined editors may wish to look at Talk:Emmy Noether#WP:URFA/2020, where there is discussion of whether Emmy Noether meets current featured article standards (and if not, what must be improved). — Bilorv ( talk) 17:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Math/LaTeX syntax doesn't support the \rlap, \llap, \clap
macros. I'd like to request feature support for these macros (perhaps in mathtools
package? I'm not sure). These macros are incredibly useful to pad/align equations and terms, especially when the equations are in a column in a table and can't rely on a single align
block. For instance, compare the table at
Inverse trigonometric functions#Solutions to elementary trigonometric equations with its layout/markup
prior to my edits. I had to use a lot of \;\,\qquad
-style spacing. But instead, I could have used a more "semantic" spacing à la the following, if \rlap
were available (ignore the align
block; I used that in an external Latex editor to help me get the alignment):
\begin{align*}
\theta &= \rlap{(-1)^k}\phantom{(-1)^k\;}\rlap{\arcsin(y)}\phantom{arccos(x)} + \rlap{}\phantom{2\,}\pi k \\
\theta &= \rlap{(-1)^k}\phantom{(-1)^k\;}\rlap{\operatorname{arccsc}(r)}\phantom{arccos(x)} + \rlap{}\phantom{2\,}\pi k \\
\theta &= \rlap{\pm}\phantom{(-1)^k\;}\rlap{\arccos(x)}\phantom{arccos(x)} + \rlap{2}\phantom{2\,}\pi k \\
\theta &= \rlap{\pm}\phantom{(-1)^k\;}\rlap{\operatorname{arcsec}(r)}\phantom{arccos(x)} + \rlap{2}\phantom{2\,}\pi k \\
\theta &= \rlap{}\phantom{(-1)^k\;}\rlap{\arctan(s)}\phantom{arccos(x)} + \rlap{}\phantom{2\,}\pi k \\
\theta &= \rlap{}\phantom{(-1)^k\;}\rlap{\operatorname{arccot}(r)}\phantom{arccos(x)} + \rlap{}\phantom{2\,}\pi k \\
\end{align*}
Where do I lodge a feature request? Or should I lobby for it here first, and get community support for it? What's the process for Latex package addition? Thanks. — sbb ( talk) 17:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
alignat
positioning. I know each &
demarcates an alternating left- or right-aligned column, but it still always confuses me.Solution |
---|
Some additional eyes would be generally appreciated at Original proof of Gödel's completeness theorem. There is some longer standing confusion about the argument itself, which is not helped by the fact that the article draws on none of the available secondary sources that are available on the topic. Felix QW ( talk) 16:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Contrast these:
I changed the former to the latter. Notice that (1) I expunged the bolding, (2) the k is italicized and the digit 1 is not (consistently with TeX and LaTeX style), (3) spacing before and after the minus sign (This is different in cases where a minus or a plus sign is used as a unary operator rather than as a binary operator. In those cases no such space is added. This is also consistent with what TeX and LaTeX do.) (4) the minus sign is not just a stubby little hyphen. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Contrast these:
Note that under WP:MOSMATH in this context one does not italicize digits or parentheses or other punctuation or things like cos, exp, det, max, sup, log, etc., but one italicizes variables. Note also that some space has been added between characters where appropriate. (Similarly, in the foregoing sentence I did not write "Notealsothatsomespacehasbeenaddedbetweencharacterswhereappropriate.") Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I just created a stub page for signed area which previously redirected to integral. This is a widely used concept which is not well described by integral and should have its own page (though it should probably eventually also be summarized in a section of area), so I created a stub for now with a basic definition.
I don't precisely know when I'll get around to expanding it, so other folks should feel free to jump in with any improvements or sources. – jacobolus (t) 18:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Hypercomputation needs attention. It starts to become a confusing read at the second sentence. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Two articles with substantial mathematical content are currently under consideration to become featured articles: they are Quine–Putnam indispensability argument and Affine symmetric group. (Currently, fewer than 10 articles on mathematics (as opposed to, say, mathematicians) are featured articles.) As part of the FAC process, reviews are required by members of the community. If you might be interested in reviewing one of these articles, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Commenting, etc. -- JBL ( talk) 17:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I've been working on articles about spherical geometry, cartography/geodesy, etc., and one common observation/tool used, especially in practical applications, is that in the infinitesimal limit the sphere (or any other 2-dimensional Riemannian manifold for that matter) looks locally Euclidean, so that tools of affine or Euclidean geometry can be used without too much error for small areas on the sphere, or e.g. a flat map of some part of the world can be treated as a faithful enough representation. Many theorems in Euclidean geometry are degenerate limiting cases of analogous theorems in spherical or hyperbolic geometry. This is a common theme more generally, with e.g. Taylor polynomials often used as function approximations for very small arguments in numerical computations. Right now the titles much greater than and much less than redirect to Inequality (mathematics), which (a) doesn't do a very good job explaining what these mean or why they are used, and (b) seems like the wrong home for these infinite or infinitesimal approximations. We also have Degeneracy (mathematics) and Limiting case (mathematics), but these both seem much broader than what I am talking about (and are also not very good articles). We also have Small-angle approximation which is one specific example but a bit narrower in scope than I am imagining. There is also Asymptotic analysis but this seems like a distinct (albeit related) topic.
Do we have an article matching this idea? If not, would it be a good idea to add one? (I would imagine e.g. redirecting much greater than and much less than there.) What would a good title be, and can anyone think of good canonical sources? – jacobolus (t) 23:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tercer ( talk) 13:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Is there any general guidance about whether a proof should be given for a result stated in an article? Thanks. ByVarying ( talk) 00:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Should I include a proof about the example of non-surjective epimorphism in the category of rings ? If we don't include the proof, this example might be better added to epimorphism. -- SilverMatsu ( talk) 02:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
On the page Projective tensor product, two sections, "Seminormed spaces" and "Examples" follow a book by Trèves on topological vector spaces very closely, basically all but verbatim. I also removed a lot from the page that I thought trivial or not notable, and these sections could very well fall under that too. I'm wondering what to do about these sections if anyone could give them a look. ByVarying ( talk) 19:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Close paraphrasing ... when extensive (with or without in-text attribution) may also violate Wikipedia's copyright policy. ByVarying | talk 03:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Hilbert space is currently designated a Good article. The GA criteria were recently tightened to require more inline citations. It would be nice if we could address this before going through the whole rigmarole of a Good Article Review. Somebody with the right textbook on their shelf could probably go through and knock out most if not all of the required footnoting in a single pass. See the Talk page for details. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Affine symmetric group is at FAC and would benefit from someone familiar with this subject inputting on the sourcing. See the bottom of the page here. Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I have a concern about whether the name "Smith–Volterra–Cantor set" is in fact standard. I posted a note at talk:Smith–Volterra–Cantor set#Naming, but it's a low-traffic article and I don't really know whether anyone will notice it. Anyone who can contribute, it would be appreciated. -- Trovatore ( talk) 20:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I am having a dispute with an editor of Tree (set theory) who insists on adding a lead image that depicts a graph-theoretic tree, not a set-theoretic tree (the difference is that in graph-theoretic trees every node except the root has a parent, and following parent links will eventually reach the root, but in set-theoretic trees the ancestors of any node can have arbitrary well-orderings in which not all elements have a parent). Additional informed opinions would be very welcome at Talk:Tree (set theory) and in editing the article (or maybe finding or creating a more appropriate lead illustration). — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Should the title of this article be italicized? I forgot if every Latin term should be so, according to the guidelines.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 14:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Use italics when italics would be necessary in running text; for example, ... foreign phrases are italicized both in ordinary text and in article titles.— David Eppstein ( talk) 04:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I've promoted this from AFC. Its seems genuine and well referenced. I'm not a mathematician so I looked up some references to confirm its existance and to determine if there was an article on Wikipedia on the subject, but doesn't appear so. scope_creep Talk 06:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Algebraically inclined editors may wish to look at Talk:Emmy Noether#WP:URFA/2020, where there is discussion of whether Emmy Noether meets current featured article standards (and if not, what must be improved). — Bilorv ( talk) 17:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Math/LaTeX syntax doesn't support the \rlap, \llap, \clap
macros. I'd like to request feature support for these macros (perhaps in mathtools
package? I'm not sure). These macros are incredibly useful to pad/align equations and terms, especially when the equations are in a column in a table and can't rely on a single align
block. For instance, compare the table at
Inverse trigonometric functions#Solutions to elementary trigonometric equations with its layout/markup
prior to my edits. I had to use a lot of \;\,\qquad
-style spacing. But instead, I could have used a more "semantic" spacing à la the following, if \rlap
were available (ignore the align
block; I used that in an external Latex editor to help me get the alignment):
\begin{align*}
\theta &= \rlap{(-1)^k}\phantom{(-1)^k\;}\rlap{\arcsin(y)}\phantom{arccos(x)} + \rlap{}\phantom{2\,}\pi k \\
\theta &= \rlap{(-1)^k}\phantom{(-1)^k\;}\rlap{\operatorname{arccsc}(r)}\phantom{arccos(x)} + \rlap{}\phantom{2\,}\pi k \\
\theta &= \rlap{\pm}\phantom{(-1)^k\;}\rlap{\arccos(x)}\phantom{arccos(x)} + \rlap{2}\phantom{2\,}\pi k \\
\theta &= \rlap{\pm}\phantom{(-1)^k\;}\rlap{\operatorname{arcsec}(r)}\phantom{arccos(x)} + \rlap{2}\phantom{2\,}\pi k \\
\theta &= \rlap{}\phantom{(-1)^k\;}\rlap{\arctan(s)}\phantom{arccos(x)} + \rlap{}\phantom{2\,}\pi k \\
\theta &= \rlap{}\phantom{(-1)^k\;}\rlap{\operatorname{arccot}(r)}\phantom{arccos(x)} + \rlap{}\phantom{2\,}\pi k \\
\end{align*}
Where do I lodge a feature request? Or should I lobby for it here first, and get community support for it? What's the process for Latex package addition? Thanks. — sbb ( talk) 17:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
alignat
positioning. I know each &
demarcates an alternating left- or right-aligned column, but it still always confuses me.Solution |
---|