The Emmy Noether article has been at featured article review for a couple months now. If anyone wants to take a look, most of the issues seem to have been fixed but the contributions to mathematics and physics section would likely benefit from a couple more citations and a quick survey (including of the typsetting) by someone more qualified than I am. Sgubaldo ( talk) 15:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at my suggestion here? Alaexis ¿question? 13:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
On Talk:Ordered Bell number, an editor is arguing that we should use ln rather than log for the natural logarithm. My position is that for mathematics articles, the standard convention is to use log; ln is for engineers and this is not an engineering article. The same editor also claims that writing is "stupid" and that we should always write it instead. Mathematically-literate opinions welcome. (Note that the article is currently in the middle of a GA review; the editor disputing the notation is not the GA reviewer.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that makes it clear that anti-logarithm x is a real number rather than making it clear that the base is e. In particular, clarify that the domain of a function of the is real numbers. see principal value. -- SilverMatsu ( talk) 04:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at the article Local analysis, which has had zero references since July 2008? Is it a valid topic for a standalone article? If so, would you be able to add a citation? If not, should it be redirected somewhere? Cielquiparle ( talk) 22:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
We have these two articles: Unitary operator, Unitary transformation. Should they get merged? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
bounded linear operator U : H → H on a Hilbert space H that satisfies U*U = UU* = Ineed not be surjective unless H is finite dimensional. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 19:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
i began investigating my my belief that optimal function estimation of a 'target function', using purely geometric properties (i.e. properties of the curve wrt to the unit interval) was cyclical.
as a preface i want to emphasise to my peer group my understanding that using very finite-valued integers (i.e. in the hundreds or thousands) to describe cardinality on the real interval is asking to get slaughtered, but i need to lay some groundwork for my request. anyways!
i observed behaviour where the 'optimal function' estimating the target would exist in cycles. that is, define A > B > C \in \mathbb{Z}_+ as the cardinality of the set of uniformly-spaced points on the domain for which we have values of target function f. i.e. we have f(a) for all a \in A, etc.
whilst possible for B = A+1, i often found there was a 'gap' between A, B and C. again, ANYWAYS:
assuming the vertical line test is enforced, it seems that the 'optimal function' for a 'target function' can be (easily) estimated via composition of functions from, say, the space of square-integrable functions.
this lead me to the work of Joel Shapiro, which seems to point to Garrett Birkhoff's 1929 paper which, as i understand it, is considered the "birkhoff universality theorem".
don't you guys think we need a page for this? it seems kind of important in the era of function approximation and the ensuing evaluation of its optimality, for which the cyclical nature of the composition of functions are incredibly relevant.
https://math.osu.edu/sites/math.osu.edu/files/Birkhoff.pdf
George D Birkhoff. Démonstration d’un théoreme élémentaire sur les fonctions entières. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 189(14):473– 475, 1929.
pinging the wikipedia math legend @ D.Lazard: to see if this meets the WP notability.
toodles, my dear PEER GROUP 162.157.84.254 ( talk) 22:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
If anyone would like a suggestion on new wikipages to write, Aaron Naber and Robin Pemantle are mathematicians recently elected to the National Academy of Sciences ( NAS, AMS). With this qualification there should be no issue on notability. Gumshoe2 ( talk) 15:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I just posted the following, to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Cross-post here, because WPM has exactly the same problem.
Please discuss there.
BTW, the WPM assessment is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Assessment and clicking through to the server shows almost all unassessed articles are biographies, with a sprinkling of societies, journals and awards. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 00:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:One half#Requested move 17 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Remsense 诉 13:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I have created a somewhat stubby new article titled Expectile.
Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Just across the article via contributions, watchlist, or whatever it is, the article Tournament (graph theory) apparently has some kind of edit war (I suppose) between User:David Eppstein and User:Closed Limelike Curves. I have no clue about graph theory, but probably need some discussion per WP:BRD. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 15:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I described tournaments as "Oriented complete graphs", which I believe to be correct": maybe you can argue that this is correct in a pedantic WP:TECHNICAL sense, if one understands the technical word "oriented" to mean adding directions to the edges of an undirected graph and "complete graph" to mean "complete undirected graph". However, it is also confusing, misleading, and totally inappropriate for the lead sentence of an article. When we talk about directed graphs, the natural interpretation of "complete graph" would be a complete directed graph, and casual readers are unlikely to notice the distinction between oriented and directed. These are not complete directed graphs. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that in the Formal criteria for adjoint functors it says that "for simplicity ignoring the set-theoretic issues". Does this refer to axiom of choice? Also, it seems that axiom of choice can be avoided by introducing a concept called anafunctor. It would be great if you could give me some advice or help with the draft ( Draft:Anafunctor). SilverMatsu ( talk) 05:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
This seems sensible, doesn't it? IntGrah ( talk) 23:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The Emmy Noether article has been at featured article review for a couple months now. If anyone wants to take a look, most of the issues seem to have been fixed but the contributions to mathematics and physics section would likely benefit from a couple more citations and a quick survey (including of the typsetting) by someone more qualified than I am. Sgubaldo ( talk) 15:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at my suggestion here? Alaexis ¿question? 13:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
On Talk:Ordered Bell number, an editor is arguing that we should use ln rather than log for the natural logarithm. My position is that for mathematics articles, the standard convention is to use log; ln is for engineers and this is not an engineering article. The same editor also claims that writing is "stupid" and that we should always write it instead. Mathematically-literate opinions welcome. (Note that the article is currently in the middle of a GA review; the editor disputing the notation is not the GA reviewer.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that makes it clear that anti-logarithm x is a real number rather than making it clear that the base is e. In particular, clarify that the domain of a function of the is real numbers. see principal value. -- SilverMatsu ( talk) 04:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Could someone please take a look at the article Local analysis, which has had zero references since July 2008? Is it a valid topic for a standalone article? If so, would you be able to add a citation? If not, should it be redirected somewhere? Cielquiparle ( talk) 22:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
We have these two articles: Unitary operator, Unitary transformation. Should they get merged? Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
bounded linear operator U : H → H on a Hilbert space H that satisfies U*U = UU* = Ineed not be surjective unless H is finite dimensional. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 19:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
i began investigating my my belief that optimal function estimation of a 'target function', using purely geometric properties (i.e. properties of the curve wrt to the unit interval) was cyclical.
as a preface i want to emphasise to my peer group my understanding that using very finite-valued integers (i.e. in the hundreds or thousands) to describe cardinality on the real interval is asking to get slaughtered, but i need to lay some groundwork for my request. anyways!
i observed behaviour where the 'optimal function' estimating the target would exist in cycles. that is, define A > B > C \in \mathbb{Z}_+ as the cardinality of the set of uniformly-spaced points on the domain for which we have values of target function f. i.e. we have f(a) for all a \in A, etc.
whilst possible for B = A+1, i often found there was a 'gap' between A, B and C. again, ANYWAYS:
assuming the vertical line test is enforced, it seems that the 'optimal function' for a 'target function' can be (easily) estimated via composition of functions from, say, the space of square-integrable functions.
this lead me to the work of Joel Shapiro, which seems to point to Garrett Birkhoff's 1929 paper which, as i understand it, is considered the "birkhoff universality theorem".
don't you guys think we need a page for this? it seems kind of important in the era of function approximation and the ensuing evaluation of its optimality, for which the cyclical nature of the composition of functions are incredibly relevant.
https://math.osu.edu/sites/math.osu.edu/files/Birkhoff.pdf
George D Birkhoff. Démonstration d’un théoreme élémentaire sur les fonctions entières. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 189(14):473– 475, 1929.
pinging the wikipedia math legend @ D.Lazard: to see if this meets the WP notability.
toodles, my dear PEER GROUP 162.157.84.254 ( talk) 22:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
If anyone would like a suggestion on new wikipages to write, Aaron Naber and Robin Pemantle are mathematicians recently elected to the National Academy of Sciences ( NAS, AMS). With this qualification there should be no issue on notability. Gumshoe2 ( talk) 15:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I just posted the following, to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. Cross-post here, because WPM has exactly the same problem.
Please discuss there.
BTW, the WPM assessment is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Assessment and clicking through to the server shows almost all unassessed articles are biographies, with a sprinkling of societies, journals and awards. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 00:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:One half#Requested move 17 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Remsense 诉 13:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I have created a somewhat stubby new article titled Expectile.
Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Just across the article via contributions, watchlist, or whatever it is, the article Tournament (graph theory) apparently has some kind of edit war (I suppose) between User:David Eppstein and User:Closed Limelike Curves. I have no clue about graph theory, but probably need some discussion per WP:BRD. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 15:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I described tournaments as "Oriented complete graphs", which I believe to be correct": maybe you can argue that this is correct in a pedantic WP:TECHNICAL sense, if one understands the technical word "oriented" to mean adding directions to the edges of an undirected graph and "complete graph" to mean "complete undirected graph". However, it is also confusing, misleading, and totally inappropriate for the lead sentence of an article. When we talk about directed graphs, the natural interpretation of "complete graph" would be a complete directed graph, and casual readers are unlikely to notice the distinction between oriented and directed. These are not complete directed graphs. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that in the Formal criteria for adjoint functors it says that "for simplicity ignoring the set-theoretic issues". Does this refer to axiom of choice? Also, it seems that axiom of choice can be avoided by introducing a concept called anafunctor. It would be great if you could give me some advice or help with the draft ( Draft:Anafunctor). SilverMatsu ( talk) 05:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
This seems sensible, doesn't it? IntGrah ( talk) 23:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)