Since it seems to be standard to gather some feedback on FAC's prior to actually nominating: I'm about to propose group (mathematics) for featured article candidacy (next week or so). It has obtained GA status and has also had a peer review since. Whoever is interested in this, have a look at the article. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 12:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Algebraist 13:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Quotient and subgroups together form a way of describing every group by its presentation: any group is the quotient of the free group over the generators of the group, quotiented by the subgroup of relations.
Just to inform you, I've tagged Paul Zimmermann for proposed deletion. Please consider improving the article. I don't no nothing about mathematics or people who do this stuff ;-) But this article fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Verifiability, because I can't see any conditions met (meeted ... hm what's the word) fulfilled and there is no secondary source. Greetings (and plz excuse my bad English, I'm not a native speaker and don't want to sound rude.) Sebastian scha. ( talk) 02:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Integration using complex analysis seems misleadingly titled, since that term would usually be taken to mean something like the residue calculus. What should it be moved to? Should this title be redirected to a different already-existing article? Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Integration using parametric derivatives needs to get deleted. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that what the article Integration using complex analysis was referring to was Real integration which happens to involve i which is just a constant. I don't think the intention was to refer to contour integration at all. I think this should be reverted and clarification added by carrying the calculation out to the end:
=Re (1/(1+i)) * exp((1+i)*x)
=Re ( 1/2 + i*1/2 ) * exp(x) * (cos (x) +i*sin(x))
=Re 1/2*exp(x)*cos(x)+1/2*i*exp(x)*sin(x)-1/2*i*exp(x)*cos(x)+1/2*exp(x)*sin(x)
=1/2 exp(x)*cos(x) + 1/2 exp(x)*sin(x)
I don't know if there is a commonly used name for this technique, but something like Integrating by writing trig functions as exponentials. Delaszk ( talk) 22:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The following articles do not cover any pure numeral system where the symbols and notations are clearly defined, instead they cover how numbers are used in the respective languages. I have proposed all of them be moved. Please discuss HERE.
Thank you. -- Voidvector ( talk) 07:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hundred-dollar, Hundred-digit Challenge problems is an orphan, linked to only from the list of mathematics articles. It seems like something that deserves more attention, but just which articles should link to it isn't something for which I have any quick answers. Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is up for FAC now. Please opine here. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 12:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Dojarca persists in inserting a formula into the article Affine curvature which he/she claims to be an accurate representation of one found in an obscure (nonexistent?) source. In addition to correcting the formula and providing a source, I have explained why the formula was incorrect in about five or six different ways (of increasing level of sophistication) on the talk page of the article. An edit war is brewing... siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 13:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As someone who at least has a passing acquaintence with the man, I believe the article should be "Gang Tian" instead of "Tian Gang". This is also how his name appears in all of his English-language publications. However, the page was recently moved by User:Ramtears with the edit summary: moved Gang Tian to Tian Gang: Chinese name convention. Does anyone else have a strong opinion about this? My own feeling is that if all reliable English sources use Gang Tian, then so should the Wikipedia entry. Anyway, if there is consensus, I suggest that an admin should undo this move. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
His MIT web page says "Gang Tian", and I remember that when I was at MIT, that's how his name appeared on his office door.
Michael Hardy (
talk)
23:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The issue is there are two style guides. WP:NAME says "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known." And WP:NC-CHINA says "The encyclopedia should reference the name more familiar to most English readers." It also says that "There is an exemption for people whose Chinese name is familiar but with English ordering (for example, Wen Ho Lee). In this case, the primary entry should be under the English ordering with a redirect from the Chinese ordering." So I recommend a short discussion on the talk page, to establish which name is commonly used in English. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I am a standard mathematician, in the sense that I was not formally trained either in Robinson's hyperreals or any other variety of pseudo or surreals. At the same time, I find the infinitesimal approach to be a helpful educational tool (aside from the issue of its merit as a research tool). I have correspondingly added some links in the standard calculus pages such as uniform continuity to the non-standard page explaining helpful and simpler approaches to some of these standard results. I hope to forestall edit wars and reverts by opening the discussion of the issue here, it being understood that everyone will abide by the results of such a discussion. Katzmik ( talk) 11:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As per the size of this discussion, I thought a more appropriate place may be at the talk page of non-standard calculus. I copied the discussion over to that talk page. Please make any additional comments there. Katzmik ( talk) 12:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm too rushed to check over this edit right now; could someone who's not so rushed take a look? Michael Hardy ( talk) 11:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It is very sad news to hear of the death of user Oded Schramm; it was a pleasure to collaborate with him. I can't believe that I posted a message on his talk page on the very day of the tragic incident.
I am somewhat worried about the standards of the article on fibre bundles. Could someone please have a look at the last section on User talk:OdedSchramm. I have included some reasons as to why I think that the article is unsatisfactory.
I remember that Oded was keen to improve the article on End (topology) so perhaps we should work on that.
Topology Expert ( talk) 07:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding various attempts to appease the WP:MTAA-pushers, some mathematics articles now have little hatnotes indicating what sort of background would be helpful to understanding the contents of the article or a section of the article. Quite recently, there was a discussion at the pump in which one of the possibilities suggested (and, I suppose, endorsed by a plurality of editors) was to consider this as an alternative to "dumbing down" articles.
I bring this up because of this edit to Clifford algebra, in which the note
was removed, with the edit summary
I am inclined to revert this, but I wanted to submit it first for some community input, since after all User:Cenarium does have a point. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 20:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned this at Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles, and someone is saying this doesn't constitute a "disclaimer" in the intended sense. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have learned with great shock about the death of Oded Schramm, a fine mathematician and an outstanding contributor to Wikipedia. Arcfrk ( talk) 22:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I would suggest - following Greg Lawler in his 2005 AMS book - moving Stochastic Loewner evolution to Schramm-Loewner evolution (i.e. that an administrator could please exchange the article and the redirect). Oded was one of the greatest mathematicians of his generation. Mathsci ( talk) 08:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Htim has been adding books written by somebody named Grossman to a variety of articles, including Average, Mean, and Statistics. There are no doubt better, more authoritative, references that can be provided for these articles. However prior to the new addition, the references at each of these articles were quite weak or nonexistent, so I was reluctant to revert Htim's addition. Could somebody here with a better knowledge of statistics please replace these sources with better ones? siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 12:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The article Matrix ordinary differential equations seems to be about ordinary differential equations or maybe systems of ODE's. In any case the ordinary differential equations article does a better job. Does anyone else agree this article should be deleted? Thenub314 ( talk) 08:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not an expert on differential equations but I think that the article should not be deleted. Perhaps further expansion of the article may reveal some interesting aspects of this form of ODE's using matrices. However, I am not the one to decide so you should probably consult some experts on the subject.
Topology Expert ( talk) 08:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
In its present form, the article's in pretty bad shape, and I can't have much confidence in the person writing it given the misuse of the term "random variable" and other infelicities of language. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not even a matrix ODE, it's a vector ODE. I vote for deletion. Loisel ( talk) 21:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, ask the person who created the article for a reference. If he has seen this definition somewhere in a book then it is likely that the subject is important.
Topology Expert ( talk) 04:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
(I've deleted my previous comment here, it was nonsense.) The term matrix differential equation could apply to equations involving derivatives of matrix functions with respect to a matrix variable OR to equations involving element by element derivatives of matrices with respect to a scalar variable. The latter meaning is used in the articles matrix exponential and ordinary differential equation#Linear ordinary differential equations, but I think the current content of Matrix ordinary differential equation should be deleted and replaced with equations involving derivatives of matrix functions. There should be articles about both types of derivative. The other one could be Matrix ordinary differential equation (element by element) Delaszk ( talk) 23:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Paraphrasing from parallelogram law:
So someone comes along and changes this last "only if" to "if and only if". I think this obscures just which fact is being called "remarkable", and that is important. But he persists. Can someone do a better job of convincing this guy than I can? Or am I missing something? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how you've managed to avoid seeing "only if" in isolation. It's commonplace. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The idea of keeping track of a project's 500 most viewed articles is a great one, and something I'd love to do for WP:FOOTY. I think it would lend our project (and Wikipedia) a great deal of credibility if we could divert some effort into improving the most viewed articles. Please could someone let me know what is involved in setting this up? Many thanks. -- Jameboy ( talk) 23:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
en
. Next cross reference with a list of articles from your project, sort and format. --
Salix alba (
talk)
10:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)While using Jitse Niesen ( talk · contribs)'s random math page utility, I found Squoval which is in the mathematical Category:Geometric shapes. It is rather unusual for a math article. :) JRSpriggs ( talk) 01:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
In the current FAC of group (mathematics) there is a (friendly) dispute between Stca74 and myself what the importance should given to group objects and topological groups in the said article. As the main contributor to the article I consider myself biased, but am also not convinced by Stca's wish to have more on these topics. So, I'd like to hear other opinions on that matter (please comment at the FAC page). Thanks, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 20:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this case could benefit from comments by mathematicians and others interested in mathematics. Post comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software for calculating π. You should first say either Keep, Delete, Comment or any of the various other courses of action, but do not stop there; state your reasons and arguments. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there a need for Wikipedia:Math Sandbox? Suntag ( talk) 02:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Could it be that it's never been used because no one knows it's there? Maybe people learning how to use TeX on Wikipedia could be directed there to practice. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Does the Bishop-Keisler controversy deserve a special wikipage? There is an intriguing episode in the history of mathematics, or perhaps it is the epistemology of mathematics, or rather the polemics of mathematics. At any rate, Errett Bishop represents the constructivist school, whereas Abraham Robinson and H. Jerome Keisler represent non-standard analysis. The fields are polar opposites of each other. It is interesting to observe that two people with very similar training in classical mathematics, can arrive at such different conclusions as to the nature of the mathematical trade. I placed the following comments at Errett Bishop and am wondering what you think about the possibility of a separate article.
Metamathematically speaking, Bishop's constructivism lies at the opposite extreme of Abraham Robinson's non-standard analysis in the spectrum of mathematical sensibility. Bishop's criticism of the latter was therefore to be expected. In '77, Bishop wrote an intriguing review of H. Jerome Keisler's book Elementary Calculus: an infinitesimal approach. The review appeared in the mainstream Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society.
Bishop first provides the reader with an assortment of quotations from Keisler:
"In '60, Robinson solved a three hundred year old problem by giving a precise treatment of infinitesimals. Robinson's achievement will probably rank as one of the major mathematical advances of the twentieth century."
Clearly in a disapproving fashion, Bishop quotes Keisler to the effect that
"In discussing the real line we remarked that we have no way of knowing what a line in physical space is really like. It might be like the hyperreal line, the real line, or neither. However, in applications of the calculus, it is helpful to imagine a line in physical space as a hyperreal line."
Getting down to business, Bishop describes Keisler's introduction of infinitesimals in the following terms:
"The impasse is broken by forgetting that Δx is a real number, calling it something else (an infinitesimal), and telling us that it is all right to neglect it."
Bishop proceeds to refer to the theoretical underpinnings of non-standard analysis as "a supposedly consistent system of axioms". Toward the very end of the review, Bishop finally goes for the guttural:
"The real damage lies in [Keisler's] obfuscation and devitalization of those wonderful ideas."
In a final passionate appeal, Bishop notes:
"Although it seems to be futile, I always tell my calculus students that mathematics is not esoteric: It is common sense. (Even the notorious ε, δ definition of limit is common sense, and moreover it is central to the important practical problems of appoximation and estimation.)"
As a response, Keisler published a 10-page practical guide describing the success of "Elementary Calculus: an infinitesimal approach" in the classroom. Katzmik ( talk) 12:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting question. What I was mostly concerned with here, however, was a battle opposing a constructivist and a infinitesimalist. Katzmik ( talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I came across the Tessarine article, which references papers by James Cockle (the person who introduced them). I haven't been able to find any other references to them though (Google books and Google scholar come up virtually empty for instance). Are they known by another name, or failing that, are they notable enough to be included here? Cheers, Ben ( talk) 16:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm revamping the article on Riemannian symmetric spaces so that it has better coverage of general symmetric spaces, which are pretty important these days. I'd like to move it to "Symmetric space" but I can't because the latter was set-up years ago to disambiguate the alternative meaning of symmetric space as a synonym for R0 space in general topology. I checked "What links here" and there seem to be no cases where there's a link to "symmetric space" in the sense of R0 space (which is hardly surprising, given that symmetric spaces in geometry, representation theory and harmonic analysis are just way more prevalent than this synonym). Can someone help me with the move? Nilradical ( talk) 20:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit confused. I was looking for something to do, and looking through the list of articles needed expert attention, I decided to take a look at Gibbs phenomenon. I found it to be a pretty good article. I improved where I thought I could, but when I looked at the article I didn't see where that tag for needing expert attention appeared. Are articles automatically added and removed from this list? Is there a delay? etc. Thenub314 ( talk) 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I recently removed a few naive statements from the article mathematical diagram (including one that stated that "geometric" fields used more diagrams than "algebraic" ones). The author has insisted on adding one back: "With the development of Frege's predicate calculus and Hilbert's formalization of mathematics end 19th century, according to Zenon Kulpa (2004), diagrams went out of fashion and where considered bad practice until recently." This is news to me and a lot of mathematicians. According to Zulpa's writings (when I look at Zulpa's webpage), very few mathematicians use diagrams. Note that diagram here is also defined broadly to include any kind of chart or schematic, so this would include graphs and commutative diagrams. I think the author of mathematical diagram is taking a lot of Zulpa's claims without a grain of salt, so I invite those interested to make their comments on the talk page. -- C S ( talk) 01:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a newly changed section in a MOS subpage, here, which would require that we use <var></var> instead of simple italics when mentioning variables in plaintext. As far as I can tell, the two methods have exactly the same effect on displayed text. There is a proposal to merge the new text closer to the main MoS here.
While this is largely harmless beating around the bush, and would have advantages if we ever decided to do anything with such variables other than italicizing them, I wonder whether mathematics editors are ever likely to do this in practice. Comments (probably most useful at the merge proposal) are welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Now I've entered " semantic markup" into the search box. It's a red link. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
<var>...</var>
too inconvenient to do somehow, then don't do it; some gnome will fix it later. It's not like much of anyone but gnomes pays any attention to this or other MOS pages. And please keep it
civil and a lot less
WP:OWNish. I'm no noob nor an "outsider"; I've been editing MOS pages for years. Just because a handful of editors seem to sometimes like to treat this particular MOS page as if it were somehow magically special does not make it immune from editing by others, much less those with legitimate concerns that math-focused editors may be unaware of, not fully understand, or simply ignore because they aren't personal concerns of those editors or they do not personally see the benefits to resolving them. One such concern is failure in various places in Wikipedia to use the XHTML semantic phrase elements for what they were intended for, an oversight that has implications for
accessibility,
metadata, the
semantic Web, external repurposing of Wikipedia content, etc., etc. Just because this guideline touches on mathematics in a few places does not mean it should be dicated by the convenience of math editors.<var>x</var>
too difficult in some way, try {{
VAR|x}}
(same output). Given that some editors simply won't care, I don't see a problem with the guideline being more flexible (will edit it in a minute to do so). The fact that this was discussed 5 years ago, before many Wikipedians were thinking about Web semantics, Web 2.0, accessibility, repurposing of content, metadata, and using simple inline templates to ease repetitive keyboarding tasks, isn't particularly persuasive. "It's more convenient the sloppy way" is not a strong argument against doing something properly. I'm frankly shocked that mathematics editors would even use such an argument to begin with, given how insistent they are that the codes and conventions they use be done with absolute precision, to the great inconvenience of all other editors (who do not notice or recognize any difference between the minus and hyphen characters, etc.). I also have to ask how many new articles are being created that use italicized variables 75 times? Surely not many. I'm also skeptical about the claim that such an article would require an extra 20 or 30 minutes to write as a result; this would only be true for someone who doesn't know how to copy-paste. As I said, a gnome (or a bot) can fix it later, so it really doesn't matter if some editor will ignore the var recommendation. If someone finds even the template version tedious, a simple solution is to write the article in a text editor, and use \\x\\\
as a temporary token, instead of ''x''
, and then simply search/replace all instances of \\\
with
and \\
with <var>
(in that order), once each, and it'll change document-wide. I do this sort of stuff all the time. Try it. Major time-saver for all sorts of things.Quote:
<var>x</var>
too difficult in some way, try {{
VAR|x}}
(same output).That's a weird suggestion. Repeatedly typing {{
VAR|x}}
is as bad as repeatedly typing <var>x</var>
. OK, so you say there are concerns that math editors may not know about, and that somehow the simpler way of doing things impairs accessibility. Can those statements impress anyone if you don't say specifically what those concerns are or how accessibility could be impaired?
Michael Hardy (
talk)
02:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I reject this crap. Loisel ( talk) 10:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the above thread is a bit frayed, I'd like to invite everybody caring about reasonable math markup to have a look (and comment) at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Variable_markup. The matter is a guideline requiring writing variables such as x not anymore simply like ''x'', but as <var>x</var> or {{var|x}}.
I, personally, think that the math community here should react unisono that installing such guidelines, especially without talking to us, is unhelpful, to say the least. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
This thing is crap. I reject it. Loisel ( talk) 10:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
If using var becomes a guideline it will be largely ignored. Not everyone has the time to devote to such nicities. Delaszk ( talk) 13:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I have raised the same issue before in this very forum: obnoxious and inflammatory comments by User:Mathsci, directed personally against other editors. Here are two recent edit summaries from "Differential geometry of surfaces":
Can nothing been done to stop it? If there are legitimate concerns about biased editing, there are much better ways of addressing them than making personal attacks that stay forever as part of the history of the article (Mathsci's favorite way of treating his designated enemies). Does mathematical community on Wikipedia have enough spine to say "enough is enough"? Arcfrk ( talk) 00:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(edent) This is not a forum for discussions about conduct. The principle of being very cautious about using ones own personal research is one that could and should be discussed here. I myself have preferred to leave it up to others to include references to my own work, and sometimes it doesn't get mentioned at all. That's life. Richard Pinch ( talk) 06:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Just a few comments:
Mathsci ( talk) 17:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I just make the point that we have policies? And referring to them is not taboo. So "remove peacock term" is OK: it explains a removal by reference to policy. But, on the other hand, WP:COI must be handled with great care. Accusations that people are putting their own interests ahead of Wikipedia's are not to be bandied about. They, preferably, are taken up in a problem-solving manner, in reasonable discussions of what the content policies permit and encourage. So, edit summaries are too, well, summary for that. Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Come on, folks, most of us here are Ph.D.'s in mathematics or related sciences. Let's behave accordingly. Without singling anybody out, Mathsci and Arcfrk, could you please make more effort to keep respectful, cordial, and collegial? Inflammatory and disparaging comments are just going to create grief and stress, wasting tremendous amount of energy which could be used in a good way on improving articles.
Editing disputes are hard and frustrating, I've witnessed it first hand. But if, of all people, folks who are mathematicians and PhD's can't deal with disagreements on amicable terms, then I don't know who can. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Noodle snacks has moved close-packing to close-packing of spheres and then to close-packing of monodisperse spheres. If you have an opinion or comment about this move, please contribute to the post-move discussion at Talk:Close-packing of monodisperse spheres. Gandalf61 ( talk) 10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there a list or category of editors who enjoy producing mathematical illustrations? I have very little artistic skill, but I can imagine there are people who would enjoy creating images from time to time.
I thought of this when I was looking at Real projective line. I think that an image of RP(1) as a circle, with the point at infinity at 12:00 and zero at 6:00, with a co-compact neighborhood of the point at infinity colored differently, would give the reader a nice sense of what's going on. But I don't have the skill to produce that sort of diagram myself. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed Non-Newtonian calculus for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Newtonian calculus. Ozob ( talk) 00:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Tosha keeps on redirecting the well-referenced article Convex metric space to Intrinsic metric without any edit summary, although these are different concepts (an annulus is not a convex metric space with the Euclidean distance, but the Euclidean metric is an intrinsic metric on this space). Comments? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 19:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abstract_nonsense. Katzmik ( talk) 12:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a ongoing discussion how to inhale some more life into the COTM. Please have a look and (if you have some) tell your thoughts on how to improve the collaborative aspects of WPM. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the "cleanup" tag from Student's t-distribution. It was put there on June 12th by an anonymous user who did not explain on the talk page why it was there. It looked at the article a bit today, admittedly not with a fine-toothed comb, and I couldn't see any evident reason why a "cleanup" tag should be there. Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking over the list of selected articles, I was surprised by many of the importance rankings. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider what our criteria are for assigning articles to Low, Mid, High and Top importance? For instance, the four color theorem, the Abel-Ruffini theorem and the Atiyah-Singer index theorem are all ranked as Top importance, which they very well may be (hi Reb! :). But then topics that seem more likely to be searched out by beginning students—such as point (geometry), area, volume, parallelogram, cylinder (geometry), tetrahedron, hyperbola, and parabola—are all of Mid importance. ( Circle, triangle and sphere are of Top importance.) I'm not saying that we should rank importance by hitcount, but perhaps we ought to consider giving such basic topics greater importance and perhaps reserving the Top importance slot for entire fields and fundamental objects such as group (mathematics) and point (geometry)? More generally, what are our criteria for Importance? Should we go through the list of selected and nearly-selected articles to make sure that our rankings are internally consistent? Willow ( talk) 12:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
While this new article cites a 2008 conference report, I have some doubts whether this can be regarded as an established concept in metric geometry, and I would welcome further comments at Talk:Inframetric. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 03:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
In Semi-major axis, we can read "The average radius of an ellipse, measured with respect to its geometric centre, is ."
Well, but ellipse never defined the "average radius". What is it? My best guess is "the radius of the circle of the same area". But is it really the definition? Barraki ( talk) 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Better math typesetting:
Also, why do you write {a}^{2} {b}^{2} when a^2 b^2 will suffice? All the superfluous extra curly braces can make newbies think those are needed in such circumstances. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is such a thing as the radius averaged with respect to angle, and there is such a thing as the radius averaged with respect to arc-length. I don't know which was intendend here, and it's not impossible that it was some other. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Please comment at talk:set (mathematical)#Move. -- Trovatore ( talk) 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It seemed difficult to me, with the existing Timeline of mathematics, to trace the development of any particular field of mathematics.
So, without touching that article, I've tried to split out its contents to be the starting point on new timeline articles for particular themes and fields:
It's only a first stab, and probably needs some tweaking. Certainly some of the timelines look to me as if they have some quite important things missing: indeed, some which should also perhaps be added to the central times. This exploding out of the central timeline I hope may make that easier to spot.
Also, I was only quickly cutting and pasting, so its likely I may have put some things in the wrong list. Or perhaps we also need to discuss where to most usefully draw list boundaries.
There are also existing timelines: Timeline of algorithms, Timeline of classical mechanics, and Algebra Timeline. The last I only spotted when I'd already made a Timeline of algebra and geometry from the central timeline, so perhaps people can comment what they think is the best way forward on that. I think there's an unmet need for a more comprehensive algebra timeline than either of the now two existing ones, particularly covering the sequence of developments in the 19th century in more detail; but that seems so wrapped up together with geometry, I thought maybe best not to split the two.
Anyway, here they are, offered as a starting point. Jheald ( talk) 17:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed an edit in which someone changed a link to construction of the real numbers to a link to construction of real numbers, with no "the". The title with the definite article is a redirect. Omitting "the" seems weird. It is as if individual real numbers were to be constructed, rather than the system as a whole. Are there opinions on moving the page to construction of the real numbers? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
"Geometry guy", what does the phrase "purely semantic" mean? Semantics is the study of meaning, so "it is purely semantic" must mean that it only conveys some meaning. Is that what you meant? Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a redirect from Identically distributed to Random variable. This seems like the wrong thing to do to me, particularly since the article no where uses the phrase identically distributed. There is a page (maybe just a stub?) Independent_and_identically-distributed_random_variables which would be more appropriate, but I am not sure how to change redirects. Thenub314 ( talk) 10:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Please comment at the review page. Katzmik ( talk) 08:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently it's the fact that the letter p goes below the line that causes the subscript under "sup" to be lower than that under "inf". But it seems to me that in this case one ought to prefer them to be at equal levels. Is this a flaw in TeX's perfection?
Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Does Jitse's bot function only when Jitse Niesen is around? At Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity we observe that no new math articles have been created, nor any added to AfD, etc., etc., for more than five days. Is there no one who can arouse the bot from its coma while Jitse is on vacation? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Claimed BLP violation(s) and WP:COATRACK. VG ☎ 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to make a major edit to the list. I propose making a table, as in here. (feel free to edit my draft!) Randomblue ( talk) 12:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Sadly the list specification is too vague. Charles Matthews ( talk) 21:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone moved Timeline of algebra to Algebra Timeline, with the incorrectly capitalized initial T. I moved it to Algebra timeline with lower-case t. Before fixing all the double redirects, maybe we should consider whether the first page move makes any sense. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've flagged it with {{POV}} because it seems to focus too much on controversies, lawsuits etc. If somebody knows more about Odifreddi's bio, please have look at the article. To me he's best know for his books on recursion theory, but I probably have a narrow perspective. VG ☎ 21:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Somebody added a link to Function composition pointing to an article about the "Theory of continuous composition" hosted on on another wiki. I've not heard of "continuous composition" before, the linked article seems unpublished stuff that didn't make much sense to me, so I've reversed the addition. VG ☎ 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
>>I apologize, what you say is correct. My article is about my own work. MandelZoom in sourceforge is a little demostration applied to MandelBrot fractal to see soft colour field due to real composition, but that's original stuff and after reading the wiki policy, I have understand that's wrong to include here. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.164.213 ( talk) 14:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have just recently joined this WikiProject. I was wondering if we already had a userbox for this project or if I should create a new one. Thanks, feel free to reply on my talk page. -- electricRush (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Problem of Apollonius, a geometry article written by WillowW is up for FAC, here. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 15:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm just missing something, but do we have an article on minimum distance estimation? -- Avi ( talk) 20:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we don't have one. You might want to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics. Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a RM to make the dab (directd quantity). This rubs me the wrong way; it seems to me that most of the fumbling at vectors since Hamilton has been caused by this contradiction in terms.
But do come and discuss it; you may convince me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Avraham ( talk · contribs) just added Actuary to our list of featured articles, on the grounds that it has been a featured article since June 30, 2006 and it is a mathematics article (it has our template). But I question whether it is really about mathematics. Yes, actuaries use a lot of mathematics, but so do many other professions. There is no significant mathematics in the article. So I think that we should remove our template and remove Category:Mathematical science occupations from the list of mathematics categories. JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
template:math fails to provide proper spacing in expressions like 4 ≥ 3. I therefore expunged the template from an article, Dirichlet's energy, I just edited. I will do likewise with other articles in which I find it if this flaw persists. Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
unnecessary.I have been working on the General Topology articles off and on for some time now. I just noticed that the main article Net_(mathematics) on net convergence in topology does not in itself define "subnet", but rather there is a separate article Subnet_(mathematics). It would seem natural to me to move the material from the latter article into the former article. What do others think? Plclark ( talk) 07:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This article, which is proposed for deletion here, seems to have a couple of links that would be okay as external links in E₈. Someone more familiar with this topic should perhaps take a look at it before it's axed. VG ☎ 15:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
A discussion (so far, very short) has been started on WP:NOTABILITY regarding an article I recently created. I am skittish about that forum, having been burned too many times by the non-science-oriented Wikipedia editors. I have urged that the discussion there be moved to here, as, here, we have both the domain experts, and the general cultural orientation, to deal with such things. If, for any reason, this starts turning into a large discussion, I would further like to move the debate to where the Physics, Comp Sci, and Biology communities can contribute, as these sorts of policy debates can, and do, have impact on all. linas ( talk) 03:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile, Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise seems relevant to the question of notability in specialist areas. Richard Pinch ( talk) 07:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It would probably be better to use Talk:Director string for the discussion, and just announce it here. That takes a little load off this board, and it also reduces and concerns (misplaced or not) about cabalism. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Curly vs. straight at Talk:Binary_relation#Symbols_for_Binary_Relations. VG ☎ 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Numerical integration is being proposed to moved Category:Numerical quadrature at CfD 16/9 and Category:Mathematical components is proposed to delete at CfD 24/9. Comments welcome. -- Salix ( talk): 17:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Please visit
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Easy as pi? to see a discussion about making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership.
--
Wavelength (
talk)
16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Just so the project people know, one of the proposals in question would mandate lots of silly little boxes saying things like "A knowledge of calculus would be helpful in understanding this article/section/formula." Since the merits and demerits of this have been discussed here before, those of you with strong feelings on the matter may want to make your opinion known at that thread. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 14:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion has been archived at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi?.
--
Wavelength (
talk)
15:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone make any sense out of the article titled Dimensional space? The first sentence is at best very vague, and the proposed example in the second (which is the last) sentence makes me suspect it may be just nonsense. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of creating articles for a few of Emile Lemoine's best-known papers, when I realised that I wasn't entirely sure whether they warranted articles. The notability guideline is as vague as can be about this, and I don't really know how to judge a paper's notability. Something such as Ars Magna clearly deserves an article, while I'm sure we can all think of works that do not. The papers, however, which I'm specifically asking about are Sur quelques propriétés d'un point remarquable du triangle and La Géométrographie ou l'art des constructions géométriques. Anyone's thoughts? Nousernamesleft ( talk) 18:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)\
Most !votes decided deletion. Perhaps there's some salvageable material to be merged into prime number. VG ☎ 18:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Introduction to general relativity has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Since it seems to be standard to gather some feedback on FAC's prior to actually nominating: I'm about to propose group (mathematics) for featured article candidacy (next week or so). It has obtained GA status and has also had a peer review since. Whoever is interested in this, have a look at the article. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 12:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Algebraist 13:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Quotient and subgroups together form a way of describing every group by its presentation: any group is the quotient of the free group over the generators of the group, quotiented by the subgroup of relations.
Just to inform you, I've tagged Paul Zimmermann for proposed deletion. Please consider improving the article. I don't no nothing about mathematics or people who do this stuff ;-) But this article fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and Wikipedia:Verifiability, because I can't see any conditions met (meeted ... hm what's the word) fulfilled and there is no secondary source. Greetings (and plz excuse my bad English, I'm not a native speaker and don't want to sound rude.) Sebastian scha. ( talk) 02:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Integration using complex analysis seems misleadingly titled, since that term would usually be taken to mean something like the residue calculus. What should it be moved to? Should this title be redirected to a different already-existing article? Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Integration using parametric derivatives needs to get deleted. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that what the article Integration using complex analysis was referring to was Real integration which happens to involve i which is just a constant. I don't think the intention was to refer to contour integration at all. I think this should be reverted and clarification added by carrying the calculation out to the end:
=Re (1/(1+i)) * exp((1+i)*x)
=Re ( 1/2 + i*1/2 ) * exp(x) * (cos (x) +i*sin(x))
=Re 1/2*exp(x)*cos(x)+1/2*i*exp(x)*sin(x)-1/2*i*exp(x)*cos(x)+1/2*exp(x)*sin(x)
=1/2 exp(x)*cos(x) + 1/2 exp(x)*sin(x)
I don't know if there is a commonly used name for this technique, but something like Integrating by writing trig functions as exponentials. Delaszk ( talk) 22:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The following articles do not cover any pure numeral system where the symbols and notations are clearly defined, instead they cover how numbers are used in the respective languages. I have proposed all of them be moved. Please discuss HERE.
Thank you. -- Voidvector ( talk) 07:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hundred-dollar, Hundred-digit Challenge problems is an orphan, linked to only from the list of mathematics articles. It seems like something that deserves more attention, but just which articles should link to it isn't something for which I have any quick answers. Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is up for FAC now. Please opine here. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 12:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Dojarca persists in inserting a formula into the article Affine curvature which he/she claims to be an accurate representation of one found in an obscure (nonexistent?) source. In addition to correcting the formula and providing a source, I have explained why the formula was incorrect in about five or six different ways (of increasing level of sophistication) on the talk page of the article. An edit war is brewing... siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 13:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As someone who at least has a passing acquaintence with the man, I believe the article should be "Gang Tian" instead of "Tian Gang". This is also how his name appears in all of his English-language publications. However, the page was recently moved by User:Ramtears with the edit summary: moved Gang Tian to Tian Gang: Chinese name convention. Does anyone else have a strong opinion about this? My own feeling is that if all reliable English sources use Gang Tian, then so should the Wikipedia entry. Anyway, if there is consensus, I suggest that an admin should undo this move. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
His MIT web page says "Gang Tian", and I remember that when I was at MIT, that's how his name appeared on his office door.
Michael Hardy (
talk)
23:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The issue is there are two style guides. WP:NAME says "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known." And WP:NC-CHINA says "The encyclopedia should reference the name more familiar to most English readers." It also says that "There is an exemption for people whose Chinese name is familiar but with English ordering (for example, Wen Ho Lee). In this case, the primary entry should be under the English ordering with a redirect from the Chinese ordering." So I recommend a short discussion on the talk page, to establish which name is commonly used in English. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 23:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I am a standard mathematician, in the sense that I was not formally trained either in Robinson's hyperreals or any other variety of pseudo or surreals. At the same time, I find the infinitesimal approach to be a helpful educational tool (aside from the issue of its merit as a research tool). I have correspondingly added some links in the standard calculus pages such as uniform continuity to the non-standard page explaining helpful and simpler approaches to some of these standard results. I hope to forestall edit wars and reverts by opening the discussion of the issue here, it being understood that everyone will abide by the results of such a discussion. Katzmik ( talk) 11:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
As per the size of this discussion, I thought a more appropriate place may be at the talk page of non-standard calculus. I copied the discussion over to that talk page. Please make any additional comments there. Katzmik ( talk) 12:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm too rushed to check over this edit right now; could someone who's not so rushed take a look? Michael Hardy ( talk) 11:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
It is very sad news to hear of the death of user Oded Schramm; it was a pleasure to collaborate with him. I can't believe that I posted a message on his talk page on the very day of the tragic incident.
I am somewhat worried about the standards of the article on fibre bundles. Could someone please have a look at the last section on User talk:OdedSchramm. I have included some reasons as to why I think that the article is unsatisfactory.
I remember that Oded was keen to improve the article on End (topology) so perhaps we should work on that.
Topology Expert ( talk) 07:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding various attempts to appease the WP:MTAA-pushers, some mathematics articles now have little hatnotes indicating what sort of background would be helpful to understanding the contents of the article or a section of the article. Quite recently, there was a discussion at the pump in which one of the possibilities suggested (and, I suppose, endorsed by a plurality of editors) was to consider this as an alternative to "dumbing down" articles.
I bring this up because of this edit to Clifford algebra, in which the note
was removed, with the edit summary
I am inclined to revert this, but I wanted to submit it first for some community input, since after all User:Cenarium does have a point. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 20:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned this at Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles, and someone is saying this doesn't constitute a "disclaimer" in the intended sense. Michael Hardy ( talk) 13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have learned with great shock about the death of Oded Schramm, a fine mathematician and an outstanding contributor to Wikipedia. Arcfrk ( talk) 22:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) I would suggest - following Greg Lawler in his 2005 AMS book - moving Stochastic Loewner evolution to Schramm-Loewner evolution (i.e. that an administrator could please exchange the article and the redirect). Oded was one of the greatest mathematicians of his generation. Mathsci ( talk) 08:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Htim has been adding books written by somebody named Grossman to a variety of articles, including Average, Mean, and Statistics. There are no doubt better, more authoritative, references that can be provided for these articles. However prior to the new addition, the references at each of these articles were quite weak or nonexistent, so I was reluctant to revert Htim's addition. Could somebody here with a better knowledge of statistics please replace these sources with better ones? siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 12:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The article Matrix ordinary differential equations seems to be about ordinary differential equations or maybe systems of ODE's. In any case the ordinary differential equations article does a better job. Does anyone else agree this article should be deleted? Thenub314 ( talk) 08:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not an expert on differential equations but I think that the article should not be deleted. Perhaps further expansion of the article may reveal some interesting aspects of this form of ODE's using matrices. However, I am not the one to decide so you should probably consult some experts on the subject.
Topology Expert ( talk) 08:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
In its present form, the article's in pretty bad shape, and I can't have much confidence in the person writing it given the misuse of the term "random variable" and other infelicities of language. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not even a matrix ODE, it's a vector ODE. I vote for deletion. Loisel ( talk) 21:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, ask the person who created the article for a reference. If he has seen this definition somewhere in a book then it is likely that the subject is important.
Topology Expert ( talk) 04:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
(I've deleted my previous comment here, it was nonsense.) The term matrix differential equation could apply to equations involving derivatives of matrix functions with respect to a matrix variable OR to equations involving element by element derivatives of matrices with respect to a scalar variable. The latter meaning is used in the articles matrix exponential and ordinary differential equation#Linear ordinary differential equations, but I think the current content of Matrix ordinary differential equation should be deleted and replaced with equations involving derivatives of matrix functions. There should be articles about both types of derivative. The other one could be Matrix ordinary differential equation (element by element) Delaszk ( talk) 23:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Paraphrasing from parallelogram law:
So someone comes along and changes this last "only if" to "if and only if". I think this obscures just which fact is being called "remarkable", and that is important. But he persists. Can someone do a better job of convincing this guy than I can? Or am I missing something? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how you've managed to avoid seeing "only if" in isolation. It's commonplace. Michael Hardy ( talk) 21:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The idea of keeping track of a project's 500 most viewed articles is a great one, and something I'd love to do for WP:FOOTY. I think it would lend our project (and Wikipedia) a great deal of credibility if we could divert some effort into improving the most viewed articles. Please could someone let me know what is involved in setting this up? Many thanks. -- Jameboy ( talk) 23:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
en
. Next cross reference with a list of articles from your project, sort and format. --
Salix alba (
talk)
10:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)While using Jitse Niesen ( talk · contribs)'s random math page utility, I found Squoval which is in the mathematical Category:Geometric shapes. It is rather unusual for a math article. :) JRSpriggs ( talk) 01:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
In the current FAC of group (mathematics) there is a (friendly) dispute between Stca74 and myself what the importance should given to group objects and topological groups in the said article. As the main contributor to the article I consider myself biased, but am also not convinced by Stca's wish to have more on these topics. So, I'd like to hear other opinions on that matter (please comment at the FAC page). Thanks, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 20:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this case could benefit from comments by mathematicians and others interested in mathematics. Post comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software for calculating π. You should first say either Keep, Delete, Comment or any of the various other courses of action, but do not stop there; state your reasons and arguments. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there a need for Wikipedia:Math Sandbox? Suntag ( talk) 02:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Could it be that it's never been used because no one knows it's there? Maybe people learning how to use TeX on Wikipedia could be directed there to practice. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Does the Bishop-Keisler controversy deserve a special wikipage? There is an intriguing episode in the history of mathematics, or perhaps it is the epistemology of mathematics, or rather the polemics of mathematics. At any rate, Errett Bishop represents the constructivist school, whereas Abraham Robinson and H. Jerome Keisler represent non-standard analysis. The fields are polar opposites of each other. It is interesting to observe that two people with very similar training in classical mathematics, can arrive at such different conclusions as to the nature of the mathematical trade. I placed the following comments at Errett Bishop and am wondering what you think about the possibility of a separate article.
Metamathematically speaking, Bishop's constructivism lies at the opposite extreme of Abraham Robinson's non-standard analysis in the spectrum of mathematical sensibility. Bishop's criticism of the latter was therefore to be expected. In '77, Bishop wrote an intriguing review of H. Jerome Keisler's book Elementary Calculus: an infinitesimal approach. The review appeared in the mainstream Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society.
Bishop first provides the reader with an assortment of quotations from Keisler:
"In '60, Robinson solved a three hundred year old problem by giving a precise treatment of infinitesimals. Robinson's achievement will probably rank as one of the major mathematical advances of the twentieth century."
Clearly in a disapproving fashion, Bishop quotes Keisler to the effect that
"In discussing the real line we remarked that we have no way of knowing what a line in physical space is really like. It might be like the hyperreal line, the real line, or neither. However, in applications of the calculus, it is helpful to imagine a line in physical space as a hyperreal line."
Getting down to business, Bishop describes Keisler's introduction of infinitesimals in the following terms:
"The impasse is broken by forgetting that Δx is a real number, calling it something else (an infinitesimal), and telling us that it is all right to neglect it."
Bishop proceeds to refer to the theoretical underpinnings of non-standard analysis as "a supposedly consistent system of axioms". Toward the very end of the review, Bishop finally goes for the guttural:
"The real damage lies in [Keisler's] obfuscation and devitalization of those wonderful ideas."
In a final passionate appeal, Bishop notes:
"Although it seems to be futile, I always tell my calculus students that mathematics is not esoteric: It is common sense. (Even the notorious ε, δ definition of limit is common sense, and moreover it is central to the important practical problems of appoximation and estimation.)"
As a response, Keisler published a 10-page practical guide describing the success of "Elementary Calculus: an infinitesimal approach" in the classroom. Katzmik ( talk) 12:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting question. What I was mostly concerned with here, however, was a battle opposing a constructivist and a infinitesimalist. Katzmik ( talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I came across the Tessarine article, which references papers by James Cockle (the person who introduced them). I haven't been able to find any other references to them though (Google books and Google scholar come up virtually empty for instance). Are they known by another name, or failing that, are they notable enough to be included here? Cheers, Ben ( talk) 16:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm revamping the article on Riemannian symmetric spaces so that it has better coverage of general symmetric spaces, which are pretty important these days. I'd like to move it to "Symmetric space" but I can't because the latter was set-up years ago to disambiguate the alternative meaning of symmetric space as a synonym for R0 space in general topology. I checked "What links here" and there seem to be no cases where there's a link to "symmetric space" in the sense of R0 space (which is hardly surprising, given that symmetric spaces in geometry, representation theory and harmonic analysis are just way more prevalent than this synonym). Can someone help me with the move? Nilradical ( talk) 20:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit confused. I was looking for something to do, and looking through the list of articles needed expert attention, I decided to take a look at Gibbs phenomenon. I found it to be a pretty good article. I improved where I thought I could, but when I looked at the article I didn't see where that tag for needing expert attention appeared. Are articles automatically added and removed from this list? Is there a delay? etc. Thenub314 ( talk) 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I recently removed a few naive statements from the article mathematical diagram (including one that stated that "geometric" fields used more diagrams than "algebraic" ones). The author has insisted on adding one back: "With the development of Frege's predicate calculus and Hilbert's formalization of mathematics end 19th century, according to Zenon Kulpa (2004), diagrams went out of fashion and where considered bad practice until recently." This is news to me and a lot of mathematicians. According to Zulpa's writings (when I look at Zulpa's webpage), very few mathematicians use diagrams. Note that diagram here is also defined broadly to include any kind of chart or schematic, so this would include graphs and commutative diagrams. I think the author of mathematical diagram is taking a lot of Zulpa's claims without a grain of salt, so I invite those interested to make their comments on the talk page. -- C S ( talk) 01:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a newly changed section in a MOS subpage, here, which would require that we use <var></var> instead of simple italics when mentioning variables in plaintext. As far as I can tell, the two methods have exactly the same effect on displayed text. There is a proposal to merge the new text closer to the main MoS here.
While this is largely harmless beating around the bush, and would have advantages if we ever decided to do anything with such variables other than italicizing them, I wonder whether mathematics editors are ever likely to do this in practice. Comments (probably most useful at the merge proposal) are welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Now I've entered " semantic markup" into the search box. It's a red link. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
<var>...</var>
too inconvenient to do somehow, then don't do it; some gnome will fix it later. It's not like much of anyone but gnomes pays any attention to this or other MOS pages. And please keep it
civil and a lot less
WP:OWNish. I'm no noob nor an "outsider"; I've been editing MOS pages for years. Just because a handful of editors seem to sometimes like to treat this particular MOS page as if it were somehow magically special does not make it immune from editing by others, much less those with legitimate concerns that math-focused editors may be unaware of, not fully understand, or simply ignore because they aren't personal concerns of those editors or they do not personally see the benefits to resolving them. One such concern is failure in various places in Wikipedia to use the XHTML semantic phrase elements for what they were intended for, an oversight that has implications for
accessibility,
metadata, the
semantic Web, external repurposing of Wikipedia content, etc., etc. Just because this guideline touches on mathematics in a few places does not mean it should be dicated by the convenience of math editors.<var>x</var>
too difficult in some way, try {{
VAR|x}}
(same output). Given that some editors simply won't care, I don't see a problem with the guideline being more flexible (will edit it in a minute to do so). The fact that this was discussed 5 years ago, before many Wikipedians were thinking about Web semantics, Web 2.0, accessibility, repurposing of content, metadata, and using simple inline templates to ease repetitive keyboarding tasks, isn't particularly persuasive. "It's more convenient the sloppy way" is not a strong argument against doing something properly. I'm frankly shocked that mathematics editors would even use such an argument to begin with, given how insistent they are that the codes and conventions they use be done with absolute precision, to the great inconvenience of all other editors (who do not notice or recognize any difference between the minus and hyphen characters, etc.). I also have to ask how many new articles are being created that use italicized variables 75 times? Surely not many. I'm also skeptical about the claim that such an article would require an extra 20 or 30 minutes to write as a result; this would only be true for someone who doesn't know how to copy-paste. As I said, a gnome (or a bot) can fix it later, so it really doesn't matter if some editor will ignore the var recommendation. If someone finds even the template version tedious, a simple solution is to write the article in a text editor, and use \\x\\\
as a temporary token, instead of ''x''
, and then simply search/replace all instances of \\\
with
and \\
with <var>
(in that order), once each, and it'll change document-wide. I do this sort of stuff all the time. Try it. Major time-saver for all sorts of things.Quote:
<var>x</var>
too difficult in some way, try {{
VAR|x}}
(same output).That's a weird suggestion. Repeatedly typing {{
VAR|x}}
is as bad as repeatedly typing <var>x</var>
. OK, so you say there are concerns that math editors may not know about, and that somehow the simpler way of doing things impairs accessibility. Can those statements impress anyone if you don't say specifically what those concerns are or how accessibility could be impaired?
Michael Hardy (
talk)
02:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I reject this crap. Loisel ( talk) 10:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the above thread is a bit frayed, I'd like to invite everybody caring about reasonable math markup to have a look (and comment) at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Variable_markup. The matter is a guideline requiring writing variables such as x not anymore simply like ''x'', but as <var>x</var> or {{var|x}}.
I, personally, think that the math community here should react unisono that installing such guidelines, especially without talking to us, is unhelpful, to say the least. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
This thing is crap. I reject it. Loisel ( talk) 10:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
If using var becomes a guideline it will be largely ignored. Not everyone has the time to devote to such nicities. Delaszk ( talk) 13:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I have raised the same issue before in this very forum: obnoxious and inflammatory comments by User:Mathsci, directed personally against other editors. Here are two recent edit summaries from "Differential geometry of surfaces":
Can nothing been done to stop it? If there are legitimate concerns about biased editing, there are much better ways of addressing them than making personal attacks that stay forever as part of the history of the article (Mathsci's favorite way of treating his designated enemies). Does mathematical community on Wikipedia have enough spine to say "enough is enough"? Arcfrk ( talk) 00:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(edent) This is not a forum for discussions about conduct. The principle of being very cautious about using ones own personal research is one that could and should be discussed here. I myself have preferred to leave it up to others to include references to my own work, and sometimes it doesn't get mentioned at all. That's life. Richard Pinch ( talk) 06:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Just a few comments:
Mathsci ( talk) 17:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Can I just make the point that we have policies? And referring to them is not taboo. So "remove peacock term" is OK: it explains a removal by reference to policy. But, on the other hand, WP:COI must be handled with great care. Accusations that people are putting their own interests ahead of Wikipedia's are not to be bandied about. They, preferably, are taken up in a problem-solving manner, in reasonable discussions of what the content policies permit and encourage. So, edit summaries are too, well, summary for that. Charles Matthews ( talk) 19:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Come on, folks, most of us here are Ph.D.'s in mathematics or related sciences. Let's behave accordingly. Without singling anybody out, Mathsci and Arcfrk, could you please make more effort to keep respectful, cordial, and collegial? Inflammatory and disparaging comments are just going to create grief and stress, wasting tremendous amount of energy which could be used in a good way on improving articles.
Editing disputes are hard and frustrating, I've witnessed it first hand. But if, of all people, folks who are mathematicians and PhD's can't deal with disagreements on amicable terms, then I don't know who can. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Noodle snacks has moved close-packing to close-packing of spheres and then to close-packing of monodisperse spheres. If you have an opinion or comment about this move, please contribute to the post-move discussion at Talk:Close-packing of monodisperse spheres. Gandalf61 ( talk) 10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there a list or category of editors who enjoy producing mathematical illustrations? I have very little artistic skill, but I can imagine there are people who would enjoy creating images from time to time.
I thought of this when I was looking at Real projective line. I think that an image of RP(1) as a circle, with the point at infinity at 12:00 and zero at 6:00, with a co-compact neighborhood of the point at infinity colored differently, would give the reader a nice sense of what's going on. But I don't have the skill to produce that sort of diagram myself. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed Non-Newtonian calculus for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Newtonian calculus. Ozob ( talk) 00:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Tosha keeps on redirecting the well-referenced article Convex metric space to Intrinsic metric without any edit summary, although these are different concepts (an annulus is not a convex metric space with the Euclidean distance, but the Euclidean metric is an intrinsic metric on this space). Comments? Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 19:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abstract_nonsense. Katzmik ( talk) 12:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a ongoing discussion how to inhale some more life into the COTM. Please have a look and (if you have some) tell your thoughts on how to improve the collaborative aspects of WPM. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the "cleanup" tag from Student's t-distribution. It was put there on June 12th by an anonymous user who did not explain on the talk page why it was there. It looked at the article a bit today, admittedly not with a fine-toothed comb, and I couldn't see any evident reason why a "cleanup" tag should be there. Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking over the list of selected articles, I was surprised by many of the importance rankings. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider what our criteria are for assigning articles to Low, Mid, High and Top importance? For instance, the four color theorem, the Abel-Ruffini theorem and the Atiyah-Singer index theorem are all ranked as Top importance, which they very well may be (hi Reb! :). But then topics that seem more likely to be searched out by beginning students—such as point (geometry), area, volume, parallelogram, cylinder (geometry), tetrahedron, hyperbola, and parabola—are all of Mid importance. ( Circle, triangle and sphere are of Top importance.) I'm not saying that we should rank importance by hitcount, but perhaps we ought to consider giving such basic topics greater importance and perhaps reserving the Top importance slot for entire fields and fundamental objects such as group (mathematics) and point (geometry)? More generally, what are our criteria for Importance? Should we go through the list of selected and nearly-selected articles to make sure that our rankings are internally consistent? Willow ( talk) 12:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
While this new article cites a 2008 conference report, I have some doubts whether this can be regarded as an established concept in metric geometry, and I would welcome further comments at Talk:Inframetric. Regards, HaeB ( talk) 03:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
In Semi-major axis, we can read "The average radius of an ellipse, measured with respect to its geometric centre, is ."
Well, but ellipse never defined the "average radius". What is it? My best guess is "the radius of the circle of the same area". But is it really the definition? Barraki ( talk) 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Better math typesetting:
Also, why do you write {a}^{2} {b}^{2} when a^2 b^2 will suffice? All the superfluous extra curly braces can make newbies think those are needed in such circumstances. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is such a thing as the radius averaged with respect to angle, and there is such a thing as the radius averaged with respect to arc-length. I don't know which was intendend here, and it's not impossible that it was some other. Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Please comment at talk:set (mathematical)#Move. -- Trovatore ( talk) 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It seemed difficult to me, with the existing Timeline of mathematics, to trace the development of any particular field of mathematics.
So, without touching that article, I've tried to split out its contents to be the starting point on new timeline articles for particular themes and fields:
It's only a first stab, and probably needs some tweaking. Certainly some of the timelines look to me as if they have some quite important things missing: indeed, some which should also perhaps be added to the central times. This exploding out of the central timeline I hope may make that easier to spot.
Also, I was only quickly cutting and pasting, so its likely I may have put some things in the wrong list. Or perhaps we also need to discuss where to most usefully draw list boundaries.
There are also existing timelines: Timeline of algorithms, Timeline of classical mechanics, and Algebra Timeline. The last I only spotted when I'd already made a Timeline of algebra and geometry from the central timeline, so perhaps people can comment what they think is the best way forward on that. I think there's an unmet need for a more comprehensive algebra timeline than either of the now two existing ones, particularly covering the sequence of developments in the 19th century in more detail; but that seems so wrapped up together with geometry, I thought maybe best not to split the two.
Anyway, here they are, offered as a starting point. Jheald ( talk) 17:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed an edit in which someone changed a link to construction of the real numbers to a link to construction of real numbers, with no "the". The title with the definite article is a redirect. Omitting "the" seems weird. It is as if individual real numbers were to be constructed, rather than the system as a whole. Are there opinions on moving the page to construction of the real numbers? Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
"Geometry guy", what does the phrase "purely semantic" mean? Semantics is the study of meaning, so "it is purely semantic" must mean that it only conveys some meaning. Is that what you meant? Michael Hardy ( talk) 15:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a redirect from Identically distributed to Random variable. This seems like the wrong thing to do to me, particularly since the article no where uses the phrase identically distributed. There is a page (maybe just a stub?) Independent_and_identically-distributed_random_variables which would be more appropriate, but I am not sure how to change redirects. Thenub314 ( talk) 10:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Please comment at the review page. Katzmik ( talk) 08:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently it's the fact that the letter p goes below the line that causes the subscript under "sup" to be lower than that under "inf". But it seems to me that in this case one ought to prefer them to be at equal levels. Is this a flaw in TeX's perfection?
Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Does Jitse's bot function only when Jitse Niesen is around? At Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity we observe that no new math articles have been created, nor any added to AfD, etc., etc., for more than five days. Is there no one who can arouse the bot from its coma while Jitse is on vacation? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Claimed BLP violation(s) and WP:COATRACK. VG ☎ 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to make a major edit to the list. I propose making a table, as in here. (feel free to edit my draft!) Randomblue ( talk) 12:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Sadly the list specification is too vague. Charles Matthews ( talk) 21:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone moved Timeline of algebra to Algebra Timeline, with the incorrectly capitalized initial T. I moved it to Algebra timeline with lower-case t. Before fixing all the double redirects, maybe we should consider whether the first page move makes any sense. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I've flagged it with {{POV}} because it seems to focus too much on controversies, lawsuits etc. If somebody knows more about Odifreddi's bio, please have look at the article. To me he's best know for his books on recursion theory, but I probably have a narrow perspective. VG ☎ 21:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Somebody added a link to Function composition pointing to an article about the "Theory of continuous composition" hosted on on another wiki. I've not heard of "continuous composition" before, the linked article seems unpublished stuff that didn't make much sense to me, so I've reversed the addition. VG ☎ 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
>>I apologize, what you say is correct. My article is about my own work. MandelZoom in sourceforge is a little demostration applied to MandelBrot fractal to see soft colour field due to real composition, but that's original stuff and after reading the wiki policy, I have understand that's wrong to include here. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.164.213 ( talk) 14:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have just recently joined this WikiProject. I was wondering if we already had a userbox for this project or if I should create a new one. Thanks, feel free to reply on my talk page. -- electricRush (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Problem of Apollonius, a geometry article written by WillowW is up for FAC, here. Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 15:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm just missing something, but do we have an article on minimum distance estimation? -- Avi ( talk) 20:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we don't have one. You might want to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics. Michael Hardy ( talk) 01:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a RM to make the dab (directd quantity). This rubs me the wrong way; it seems to me that most of the fumbling at vectors since Hamilton has been caused by this contradiction in terms.
But do come and discuss it; you may convince me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Avraham ( talk · contribs) just added Actuary to our list of featured articles, on the grounds that it has been a featured article since June 30, 2006 and it is a mathematics article (it has our template). But I question whether it is really about mathematics. Yes, actuaries use a lot of mathematics, but so do many other professions. There is no significant mathematics in the article. So I think that we should remove our template and remove Category:Mathematical science occupations from the list of mathematics categories. JRSpriggs ( talk) 05:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
template:math fails to provide proper spacing in expressions like 4 ≥ 3. I therefore expunged the template from an article, Dirichlet's energy, I just edited. I will do likewise with other articles in which I find it if this flaw persists. Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
unnecessary.I have been working on the General Topology articles off and on for some time now. I just noticed that the main article Net_(mathematics) on net convergence in topology does not in itself define "subnet", but rather there is a separate article Subnet_(mathematics). It would seem natural to me to move the material from the latter article into the former article. What do others think? Plclark ( talk) 07:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This article, which is proposed for deletion here, seems to have a couple of links that would be okay as external links in E₈. Someone more familiar with this topic should perhaps take a look at it before it's axed. VG ☎ 15:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
A discussion (so far, very short) has been started on WP:NOTABILITY regarding an article I recently created. I am skittish about that forum, having been burned too many times by the non-science-oriented Wikipedia editors. I have urged that the discussion there be moved to here, as, here, we have both the domain experts, and the general cultural orientation, to deal with such things. If, for any reason, this starts turning into a large discussion, I would further like to move the debate to where the Physics, Comp Sci, and Biology communities can contribute, as these sorts of policy debates can, and do, have impact on all. linas ( talk) 03:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile, Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise seems relevant to the question of notability in specialist areas. Richard Pinch ( talk) 07:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It would probably be better to use Talk:Director string for the discussion, and just announce it here. That takes a little load off this board, and it also reduces and concerns (misplaced or not) about cabalism. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Curly vs. straight at Talk:Binary_relation#Symbols_for_Binary_Relations. VG ☎ 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Numerical integration is being proposed to moved Category:Numerical quadrature at CfD 16/9 and Category:Mathematical components is proposed to delete at CfD 24/9. Comments welcome. -- Salix ( talk): 17:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Please visit
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Easy as pi? to see a discussion about making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership.
--
Wavelength (
talk)
16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Just so the project people know, one of the proposals in question would mandate lots of silly little boxes saying things like "A knowledge of calculus would be helpful in understanding this article/section/formula." Since the merits and demerits of this have been discussed here before, those of you with strong feelings on the matter may want to make your opinion known at that thread. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 14:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion has been archived at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi?.
--
Wavelength (
talk)
15:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone make any sense out of the article titled Dimensional space? The first sentence is at best very vague, and the proposed example in the second (which is the last) sentence makes me suspect it may be just nonsense. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of creating articles for a few of Emile Lemoine's best-known papers, when I realised that I wasn't entirely sure whether they warranted articles. The notability guideline is as vague as can be about this, and I don't really know how to judge a paper's notability. Something such as Ars Magna clearly deserves an article, while I'm sure we can all think of works that do not. The papers, however, which I'm specifically asking about are Sur quelques propriétés d'un point remarquable du triangle and La Géométrographie ou l'art des constructions géométriques. Anyone's thoughts? Nousernamesleft ( talk) 18:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)\
Most !votes decided deletion. Perhaps there's some salvageable material to be merged into prime number. VG ☎ 18:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Introduction to general relativity has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.