Looking at a recent edit in it.wiki, I noticed that the Lambert function page (as well as some related one) is full of references to the work of T.C. Scott and his collaborators always added by the same user ( TonyMath), which I presume is Scott himself. The same applies to en.wikipedia (although here it is less obvious because the relevant pages are longer) and in many other languages. I cannot immediately judge all his additions, but my guess is that his work is being given undue weight, given all the scientific literature that is being published nowadays. For sure, the very recent work related to the Riemann hypothesis that he just linked seems not nearly notable enough to be referenced on Wikipedia. There are many many criterions for the Riemann hypothesis, only a few of which are notable, and the fact that an obscure one can be expressed by using also a generalization of the Lambert function (which is a very natural/simple function to come up in all sort of problems) is not very relevant at all. It would be helpful if someone could give a look to his edits to see if his works should be referenced or not. -- Sandrobt ( talk) 10:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Bernoulli polynomials is almost as much about the Euler polynomials as it is about the Bernoulli polynomials. Would it be a good idea to rename the article to "Bernoulli polynomials and Euler polynomials"? -- Lambiam 19:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
See also Talk:Bernoulli polynomials § Requested move 24 December 2023. -- Lambiam 09:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The Derivative article looks pretty fair overall until towards the end, particularly § Total derivative, total differential and Jacobian matrix. It could use attention. I'm not convinced that it's adequately cited or that the {{ citation needed}} tags are in the right places; the text seems overly detailed in places. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
We have a page on the sum of four cubes problem, as well as the sums of three cubes problem. The two problems have significant overlap. The four cubes problem is definitively known for numbers not congruent to 4 or 5 mod 9 and is suspected true for numbers satisfying that congruence, while the three cubes problem is only suspected true for numbers not congruent to 4 or 5 mod 9 and definitively false for numbers satisfying that congruence. Also, naturally, if one were to prove the three cubes problem, then adding 1 or -1 would solve the four cubes problem too. Given the similarity, and the relative lack of content on the four cubes problem, is it worth keeping the two pages separate? GalacticShoe ( talk) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm vaguely dissatisfied with e § Alternative characterizations. When I came across it, it was an uncited grab-bag of unmotivated properties without motivations or relations. I've tried to flesh it out, but I'm still not convinced this is the right way to present the material. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Information processing (psychology)#Requested move 7 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 19:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Since there was no source for the diagonal morphism, I added references to the article and then I realized that some of those references also explain the co-diagonal morphisim. So, I thought I'd add the definition of co-diagonal morphism to the Diagonal morphism. Is this notion in the correct place? If it is a correct, I'm thinking of renaming the article to the "Diagonal and co-diagonal" and create a redirect co-diagonal morphism. Also, which is better, codiagonal or co-diagonal? -- SilverMatsu ( talk) 00:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an educational platform in itself and this project, in particular, focuses on mathematics. Therefore, I believe it is essential to present the topic of ‘Research in Mathematics Didactics’. This field of study is crucial for improving the teaching and learning of mathematics, and I hope that by making it known, we can contribute to its development. Lucas Varela Correa ( talk) 16:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Because randomized trials provide clear, objective evidence on “what works”— good news, everyone! We don't need no stinking meta-analyses! XOR'easter ( talk) 01:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Original proof of Gödel's completeness theorem. Dirsaka claims to have found a fundamental flaw in Gödel's original proof. (Dirsaka does not claim that the actual result is wrong, just that particular proof.) I do not have time at the moment to follow through all the arguments, but the chance that an error so basic, in such a prominent piece of mathematical history, would have escaped notice till now, strikes me as ... unlikely. If anyone wants to dive in and figure it out, that would be a service. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
let F be a functional variable" which I read as "let F be a symbol for a (binary) relation (on natural numbers)". Lateron, your main point of criticism appears to be that Gödel doesn't show that "
F is of degree 0". However,
degreeis a property of formulas in prenex normal form, essentially counting the number of / changes. So
F, or, more precisely,
F(r,n), as it occurs in the formulas
Band
C, with
r,
nbeing two bound variables over natural numbers, is an atomic formula, without any quantifiers; therefore it of course has degree 0. - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 10:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
There are a few remaining {{ citation needed}} tags in the article 0. Almost half of them are in the "Computer science" section and can probably be sourced to technical manuals explaining the fundamentals of various languages. I have no will to push it through the GA or FA process, but it's highly visible as far as math articles go, and it'd be nice to have it free from flagged problems. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Math folks. Noether's theorem starts out with this sentence:
The two words "differentiable symmetry" are both linked and the blue links make it appear to be one thing, a "differentiable symmetry", but the two links are to different articles. The pairing also appears in the section "Informal statement of the theorem" but no where else. It does not appear in Symmetry (physics) for example. Is it a thing?
If I search on Google for "differentiable symmetry" this exact sentence comes up again and again, making me wonder if the wikipedia version has become the source. I did not see "differentiable symmetry" anywhere in Noether's paper.
Things I read about symmetry use "continuous symmetry". For a physicist, we'd simply assume that a continuous symmetry was differentiable and vice versa until corrected by some math person. But is it true? I'm looking for a reference I can use for the combination. Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)I would expect the phrase "differential symmetry" to mean something like a diffeomorphism, which is a single symmetry defined by a smooth function. But instead, here it refers to a smooth family of symmetries. Maybe that could be clarified. (Also, "smooth" is usually usable in place of differentiable and is much less technical. It is somewhat vague as to how smooth is smooth, but I think at the start of the article that's an ok price to pay for reduced technicality.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I have been trying to fix a link to a disambiguation page on Vietoris-Rips filtration. Unfortunately, I have to admit that the article is way over my head. Can someone here solve this link and point is to the right article? Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 19:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I have just corrected the article's title so that it is called Vietoris–Rips filtration (with an en-dash, as required by WP:MOS) rather than Vietoris-Rips filtration (with a hyphen rather than an en-dash). I also corrected numerous occurrences of the phrase in the article, and fixed the links to the version with they hyphen.
I further corrected the omission of the links to the articles about the two eponyms, Leopold Vietoris and Eliyahu Rips.
One task that should be looked at by those familiar with the topic is to ascertain which other Wikipedia articles ought to link to this one and in particular whether the articles about the two eponyms should link to it. @ The Banner: Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Mathematical theory and its history could use more attention. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAST, I have changed the target of Mathematical theory into Theory#Mathematical. Indeed, a reader searching for "Mathematical theory" will probably want a definition of the concept rather than an indiscriminate list of mathematical theories. I have also edited the new target.
About the above discussion: it is sure that, in mathematics, "theory" and "mathematical theory" are terms of jargon that are widely used and rarely defined. The number of our articles that have "theory" in their names is a testimony of this. So, this has to be explained in Wikipedia. However, I do not believe that there is much more to say about this than that it is already in Theory#Mathematical. So, for the moment, there is no need of a separate article, and it suffices to improve Theory#Mathematical. D.Lazard ( talk) 16:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Emmy Noether for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 20:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I just added the following comment at Wikimedia Commons Village Pump:
The image File:Evolution of Hindu-Arabic numerals.jpg is a very lightly modified version of a diagram from Karl Menninger's book Number Words and Number Symbols (1969), page 418, originally published in German (1934) as Zahlwort und Ziffer. This is a very clear copyright violation, though the author user:Hu741f4 claimed this as their own cc-by-sa licensed work.
A couple other images are almost certainly also copyright violation: File:Numeration-brahmi fr.png is translated into French, and according to the image description got the numeral images from Datta and Singh (1935) History of Hindu Mathematics which according to History of Hindu Mathematics and IA is in the public domain (I am not sure if that is accurate; the copyright page of these scans says "all rights reserved", but perhaps the copyright has expired in India). I can't immediately tell if this is true and the uploader user:Piero remade the image, or if this was also just scanned from Menninger then overwritten with translated labels, but either way this diagram is too closely based on Menninger's diagram to not be a clear-cut derivative work, and it's especially shady that there's no attribution to Menninger. This was then translated back into English as File:The_Brahmi_numeral_system_and_its_descendants.png by user:Tobus. Again Menninger is not credited, and this one has a description page which no longer makes any claims about where the glyph images come from.
It would be nice if someone would redraw an image that is not such a blatant ripoff. The wide use of these images across Wikimedia projects testifies to their importance. – jacobolus (t) 00:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Just reminder. The article Andrew Wiles is preparing for the possibly the next FA. However, the content of this article may need attention from an expert. It is already more than two months since PR. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 03:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that Category:Iranian inventions and Category:Azerbaijani inventions have been added to Fuzzy set. I've never seen a category related to nationality added to an article about mathematics, so I find it a little strange. SilverMatsu ( talk) 02:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Vector space has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
This discussion ought to be here on this page rather than at the Reference Desk. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Looking at a recent edit in it.wiki, I noticed that the Lambert function page (as well as some related one) is full of references to the work of T.C. Scott and his collaborators always added by the same user ( TonyMath), which I presume is Scott himself. The same applies to en.wikipedia (although here it is less obvious because the relevant pages are longer) and in many other languages. I cannot immediately judge all his additions, but my guess is that his work is being given undue weight, given all the scientific literature that is being published nowadays. For sure, the very recent work related to the Riemann hypothesis that he just linked seems not nearly notable enough to be referenced on Wikipedia. There are many many criterions for the Riemann hypothesis, only a few of which are notable, and the fact that an obscure one can be expressed by using also a generalization of the Lambert function (which is a very natural/simple function to come up in all sort of problems) is not very relevant at all. It would be helpful if someone could give a look to his edits to see if his works should be referenced or not. -- Sandrobt ( talk) 10:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Bernoulli polynomials is almost as much about the Euler polynomials as it is about the Bernoulli polynomials. Would it be a good idea to rename the article to "Bernoulli polynomials and Euler polynomials"? -- Lambiam 19:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
See also Talk:Bernoulli polynomials § Requested move 24 December 2023. -- Lambiam 09:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The Derivative article looks pretty fair overall until towards the end, particularly § Total derivative, total differential and Jacobian matrix. It could use attention. I'm not convinced that it's adequately cited or that the {{ citation needed}} tags are in the right places; the text seems overly detailed in places. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
We have a page on the sum of four cubes problem, as well as the sums of three cubes problem. The two problems have significant overlap. The four cubes problem is definitively known for numbers not congruent to 4 or 5 mod 9 and is suspected true for numbers satisfying that congruence, while the three cubes problem is only suspected true for numbers not congruent to 4 or 5 mod 9 and definitively false for numbers satisfying that congruence. Also, naturally, if one were to prove the three cubes problem, then adding 1 or -1 would solve the four cubes problem too. Given the similarity, and the relative lack of content on the four cubes problem, is it worth keeping the two pages separate? GalacticShoe ( talk) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm vaguely dissatisfied with e § Alternative characterizations. When I came across it, it was an uncited grab-bag of unmotivated properties without motivations or relations. I've tried to flesh it out, but I'm still not convinced this is the right way to present the material. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Information processing (psychology)#Requested move 7 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 19:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Since there was no source for the diagonal morphism, I added references to the article and then I realized that some of those references also explain the co-diagonal morphisim. So, I thought I'd add the definition of co-diagonal morphism to the Diagonal morphism. Is this notion in the correct place? If it is a correct, I'm thinking of renaming the article to the "Diagonal and co-diagonal" and create a redirect co-diagonal morphism. Also, which is better, codiagonal or co-diagonal? -- SilverMatsu ( talk) 00:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an educational platform in itself and this project, in particular, focuses on mathematics. Therefore, I believe it is essential to present the topic of ‘Research in Mathematics Didactics’. This field of study is crucial for improving the teaching and learning of mathematics, and I hope that by making it known, we can contribute to its development. Lucas Varela Correa ( talk) 16:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Because randomized trials provide clear, objective evidence on “what works”— good news, everyone! We don't need no stinking meta-analyses! XOR'easter ( talk) 01:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Original proof of Gödel's completeness theorem. Dirsaka claims to have found a fundamental flaw in Gödel's original proof. (Dirsaka does not claim that the actual result is wrong, just that particular proof.) I do not have time at the moment to follow through all the arguments, but the chance that an error so basic, in such a prominent piece of mathematical history, would have escaped notice till now, strikes me as ... unlikely. If anyone wants to dive in and figure it out, that would be a service. -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
let F be a functional variable" which I read as "let F be a symbol for a (binary) relation (on natural numbers)". Lateron, your main point of criticism appears to be that Gödel doesn't show that "
F is of degree 0". However,
degreeis a property of formulas in prenex normal form, essentially counting the number of / changes. So
F, or, more precisely,
F(r,n), as it occurs in the formulas
Band
C, with
r,
nbeing two bound variables over natural numbers, is an atomic formula, without any quantifiers; therefore it of course has degree 0. - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 10:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
There are a few remaining {{ citation needed}} tags in the article 0. Almost half of them are in the "Computer science" section and can probably be sourced to technical manuals explaining the fundamentals of various languages. I have no will to push it through the GA or FA process, but it's highly visible as far as math articles go, and it'd be nice to have it free from flagged problems. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Math folks. Noether's theorem starts out with this sentence:
The two words "differentiable symmetry" are both linked and the blue links make it appear to be one thing, a "differentiable symmetry", but the two links are to different articles. The pairing also appears in the section "Informal statement of the theorem" but no where else. It does not appear in Symmetry (physics) for example. Is it a thing?
If I search on Google for "differentiable symmetry" this exact sentence comes up again and again, making me wonder if the wikipedia version has become the source. I did not see "differentiable symmetry" anywhere in Noether's paper.
Things I read about symmetry use "continuous symmetry". For a physicist, we'd simply assume that a continuous symmetry was differentiable and vice versa until corrected by some math person. But is it true? I'm looking for a reference I can use for the combination. Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
19:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)I would expect the phrase "differential symmetry" to mean something like a diffeomorphism, which is a single symmetry defined by a smooth function. But instead, here it refers to a smooth family of symmetries. Maybe that could be clarified. (Also, "smooth" is usually usable in place of differentiable and is much less technical. It is somewhat vague as to how smooth is smooth, but I think at the start of the article that's an ok price to pay for reduced technicality.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I have been trying to fix a link to a disambiguation page on Vietoris-Rips filtration. Unfortunately, I have to admit that the article is way over my head. Can someone here solve this link and point is to the right article? Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 19:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I have just corrected the article's title so that it is called Vietoris–Rips filtration (with an en-dash, as required by WP:MOS) rather than Vietoris-Rips filtration (with a hyphen rather than an en-dash). I also corrected numerous occurrences of the phrase in the article, and fixed the links to the version with they hyphen.
I further corrected the omission of the links to the articles about the two eponyms, Leopold Vietoris and Eliyahu Rips.
One task that should be looked at by those familiar with the topic is to ascertain which other Wikipedia articles ought to link to this one and in particular whether the articles about the two eponyms should link to it. @ The Banner: Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Mathematical theory and its history could use more attention. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAST, I have changed the target of Mathematical theory into Theory#Mathematical. Indeed, a reader searching for "Mathematical theory" will probably want a definition of the concept rather than an indiscriminate list of mathematical theories. I have also edited the new target.
About the above discussion: it is sure that, in mathematics, "theory" and "mathematical theory" are terms of jargon that are widely used and rarely defined. The number of our articles that have "theory" in their names is a testimony of this. So, this has to be explained in Wikipedia. However, I do not believe that there is much more to say about this than that it is already in Theory#Mathematical. So, for the moment, there is no need of a separate article, and it suffices to improve Theory#Mathematical. D.Lazard ( talk) 16:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Emmy Noether for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 20:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I just added the following comment at Wikimedia Commons Village Pump:
The image File:Evolution of Hindu-Arabic numerals.jpg is a very lightly modified version of a diagram from Karl Menninger's book Number Words and Number Symbols (1969), page 418, originally published in German (1934) as Zahlwort und Ziffer. This is a very clear copyright violation, though the author user:Hu741f4 claimed this as their own cc-by-sa licensed work.
A couple other images are almost certainly also copyright violation: File:Numeration-brahmi fr.png is translated into French, and according to the image description got the numeral images from Datta and Singh (1935) History of Hindu Mathematics which according to History of Hindu Mathematics and IA is in the public domain (I am not sure if that is accurate; the copyright page of these scans says "all rights reserved", but perhaps the copyright has expired in India). I can't immediately tell if this is true and the uploader user:Piero remade the image, or if this was also just scanned from Menninger then overwritten with translated labels, but either way this diagram is too closely based on Menninger's diagram to not be a clear-cut derivative work, and it's especially shady that there's no attribution to Menninger. This was then translated back into English as File:The_Brahmi_numeral_system_and_its_descendants.png by user:Tobus. Again Menninger is not credited, and this one has a description page which no longer makes any claims about where the glyph images come from.
It would be nice if someone would redraw an image that is not such a blatant ripoff. The wide use of these images across Wikimedia projects testifies to their importance. – jacobolus (t) 00:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Just reminder. The article Andrew Wiles is preparing for the possibly the next FA. However, the content of this article may need attention from an expert. It is already more than two months since PR. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 03:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that Category:Iranian inventions and Category:Azerbaijani inventions have been added to Fuzzy set. I've never seen a category related to nationality added to an article about mathematics, so I find it a little strange. SilverMatsu ( talk) 02:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Vector space has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
This discussion ought to be here on this page rather than at the Reference Desk. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)