I'd really like to make the analytic number theory up to scratch - it currently reads like a random assortment of paragraphs from a textbook, with no real structure or cohesion. I've started a discussion on the talk page, and edits will be happening over the next few days - more eyes and opinions welcome. Joth ( talk) 11:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Negative and non-negative numbers has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 04:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
We have yet another pissing match featuring Arthur and Hans. We have long established that there is an ongoing problem with mathematics articles being inaccessible to readers, with no meaningful progress on that issue. I have created this diagram so as to help in that regard. However, it is apparently "silly" and "too simple" to be useful. Of course, by "useful" Arthur means "useful to him." I am pretty sure that "silly" is meaningless insofar as mathematics are concerned. Perhaps some other editors could provide some meaningful constructive input to the situation, something Hans and Arthur never do, at least not until after a great deal of drama. Of course I, and Hofstadter thought that something like this was perfectly illustrative. So lets see what is so terrible about it. I believe the biggest problem is pedantism. Greg Bard ( talk) 21:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's true in practice that all theorems are well formed formulas. Maybe all formal theorems are, and maybe most or all theorems could be formalized as such, but actual theorems are generally expressed as sequences of words in a natural language. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
"Among the well-formed strings occur the theorems. These are defined by an axiom schema and a rule of production ... Notice, therefore, that all false additions ... are mapped into strings which are well formed, but which are not theorems." (my italics)
Greg — stop the personal insults — they are inappropriate, counterproductive, unwanted here, against policy and sanctionable. Paul August ☎ 11:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:0.999...#Refining the paragraph over whether the lead, or more precisely the first paragraph, should include part or all of a proof of 0.999... equalling one. Other opinions on this would be welcome.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 12:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
According to Jacques Pelletier du Mans, the following claim in Long and short scales is wrong:
Jacques Pelletier du Mans used the name milliard (“milliart”) for "Million de Millions", i.e. 1012.
Apparently the following is also wrong and is apparently an incorrect and OR interpretation of what Google shows from David Eugene Smith's History of Mathematics:
The majority of scientists either continued to say "thousand million" or changed the meaning of the Pelletier term, milliard, from "million of millions" down to "thousand million". -- Espoo ( talk) 21:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that no such articles exist as of now, at least improper integral doesn't mention the method of determining convergence. Besides, Abel's test or Dirichlet test should describe their applicability to improper integrals in addition to series.-- Netheril96 ( talk) 11:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Opinions of this edit? (In my view, this rewrite gives a clearer way of explaining the proof.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
What concerns me more than the proof is the hideous dy/dx notation. Why would you put the d in upright type? Where the heck does this come from? Would anyone mind if I got rid of it? It's a typographical abomination. Ozob ( talk) 11:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The earlier proof, which fairly close to what Geometry guy proposes, more easily generalizes to other situations. The new proof, however, is arguably somewhat simpler and probably closer to what can be found in a first year calculus textbook, despite initially being based on a fallacy. I think, once the original proof is streamlined a bit, both proofs add value to the article. One is more useful to those just starting out, and the other useful to those encountering this material a second time in or after a first course on analysis. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 10:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, over at the disambiguation pages with links project, we've come across the disambiguation page Adjoint representation, with 67 links that need to be pointed to the correct article. I start looking into this, and then the headaches start. Could an expert help us out? Thanks, -- JaGa talk 13:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hurm. So, I'm looking at a few of these: Special unitary group, Color charge, and Root system. I'm thinking it should go like this:
What do you think? (Also, I'm under the impression, unless it specifically mentions algebras, use the group article). -- JaGa talk 01:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Partial fraction is quite a mess at the moment. One of the major issues is an overabundance of disorganised examples. I've tried to condense the principles and procedures behind these examples into a concise description. Some help with cleaning up the article, as well as a review of my edits, would be appreciated; my understanding of polynomials does not extend far beyond high school. These were my changes. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 13:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The article titled Inexact differential could use some work. The concept seems to be fairly general but the first sentence narrows it down to thermodynamics. Maybe written by someone who's studied only thermodynamics? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
...could use some work. It now starts like this:
But you can't call it dQ, unless Q exists. I'd modify the sentence if I were sure what genus the concept should belong to. 1-forms, maybe? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Something like this would work (but see below):
provided it's clear what a "mathematical differential" in general is. There's a link, but I hesitate to be sure that it's the right one.
Should this article be merged with Circle group or what? (I didn't know about circle group article till later.) 24.7.28.186 ( talk) 16:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I've just created a stub for semi-infinite, but it's rather out of my own areas of maths, so if anyone can give feedback or help improve it, I'd be very grateful! (Following the advice here. ☻) Pit-trout ( talk) 16:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
If there were a separate article on semi-infinite intervals I'd consider making this a disambiguation page. If I were somewhat confident that there ought to be such an article, I'd create it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I have alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation about this discussion; they have have views on the proper fate of the article (disambiguation page, article, deletion, or something else). CRGreathouse ( t | c) 20:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Mathematical Reviews classifies " semi-infinite programming" as 90C34 in its Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC2010). Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The T.O.C. of this page listed a section titled "Semi-infinite stub created". In the T.O.C., you can't tell that "semi-infinite" is a link, so I thought: Yet another of those interminable War-and-Peace-length ("semi-infinite") articles where if you somehow succeed in scrolling all the way to the bottom, it says "This article is a stub." Usually I just delete the "stub" tag. But I guess that's not what it is this time. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Some discussion is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacks spiral. Will Orrick ( talk) 15:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Padé approximant tells about existence, uniqueness and usefulness, but not a hint about how to construct one, unless I'm too thick to see it. (I looked about some with Google, with no better luck.) Is it a black art? — Tamfang ( talk) 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Really I meant to urge that the article (rather than this page) should have a better explanation! — Tamfang ( talk) 03:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
In combinatorial convex geometry, the Shapley–Folkman lemma concerns the approximate convexity of Minkowski sums of non-convex sets; the Shapley–Folkman lemma is used in mathematical economics, optimization, and probability.
The article has received a substantial (Wikipedia) peer-review. The additional suggestions (including article assessment) of mathematicians would be especially helpful now.
Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 19:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Chebyshev cube root needs references. There seem to be five books that can be found via Google, and some papers. If someone can figure out which parts of which sources should be cited in which parts of the article before I or someone else gets to it, that would be useful. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Opperman's conjecture, concerning the distribution of primes, is an orphan, i.e. no other articles link to it except the list of mathematics articles. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I think we have something like a consensus that things that can be found in every textbook that covers an article's topic do not need inline citations. Motivated by a dispute at logarithm and by the suspicion that wikipedantry helped create the climate in which some rather experienced editors resort to plagiarism because they feel V and NOR leave them no other choice, I have proposed an addition to WP:V. See WT:V#When a reliable source is required. Hans Adler 16:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know the status of MuPAD? Has it been discontinued? I have started a discussion on this at Talk:MuPAD. Yaris678 ( talk) 17:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The OEIS interwiki prefix has been broken: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences links. PrimeHunter ( talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed {{ Infobox integer sequence}} being applied to some articles. I'm just pointing out its availability, without comment as to whether it's appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm a law student, and I created class representative as a redirect to lead plaintiff. Then I discovered that "class representative" is also a mathematical term. So, as a courtesy, I changed the redirect into a disambiguation page. However, I do not have any mathematical background, so I do not feel qualified to populate "your" section of the disambiguation page. Currently the page is not compliant with wikipedia stylistic rules. So I would like to invite someone here to fix "your" section of the dab page, either by creating a stub for class representative (mathematics), or by formatting your dab section some other way. Thanks.
- AGradman / talk / how the subject page looked when I made this edit 21:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
A math related image has been nominated for FP. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Maze Generation for discussion.-- RDBury ( talk) 04:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
At talk:Logarithm we have a discussion (prolonging a previous one at talk:complex number) about the markup of mathematical standalone formulas. DVdm and JohnBlackburne make it a point that standalone formulas like
have to be formatted using <math> markup, such as
Their main argument is WP:MOS, which says "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article". I contest this point of view, based on the idea that using math markup (where not necessary) as opposed to HTML markup in standalone formulas, creates more inconsistencies than really necessary. Can someone with with a cool head please have a say? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 20:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Symbolic computation#Merger with computer algebra system Yaris678 ( talk) 14:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone changed Orthogonal basis from a redirect ( Orthonormal basis) to a new article. The redirect was a bit dodgy because the concepts, while related, are different and the other article doesn't really cover the subject. On the other hand, the concepts are similar enough that they could be covered in the same article. Orthogonal bases often appear in contexts, such as orthogonal polynomials, where insisting on unit length would only introduce a lot of pesky square roots into computations, so they are a legitimate subject in their own right. If there is to be a separate article then the stub should be expanded and if not then material should be added to the other article, but it's not clear to me which way to go at this point.-- RDBury ( talk) 08:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines#Bringing this guideline in line with policy that may be of interest to others here. The short version is, an editor wants to change the guidelines to explicitly discourage the use of references to original research papers. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
(Just a courtesy note.) There has been some discussion recently about whether Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines needs to be updated to reflect current practice. This wikiproject is one of the projects that signed on to this guideline in the past. If you have any comments or concerns about the guideline, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines.
If we decide that we don't want to be associated with the guideline any more, it would be possible to remove our project from the list at the top of the guideline page. However, keeping the guidelines up to date seems like a better option to me. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 18:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking about the formatting we use for the capital letter I to denote an interval; say I = [0,1]. I really don't like how this letter looks in this font. What about using the teletext font I instead? You get this by typing <tt>I</tt>. Which do you think looks better I = [0,1] or I = [0,1]? I know that and are options, but the former has alignment problems and the latter looks more or less the same; except for the loading time and the other browser settings that people might have. What are your opinions on the matter? — Fly by Night ( talk) 23:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
From where I'm viewing this, the teletext version looks good, in that it has serifs where the italic I does not, and is slanted like the italic I. But I don't know how much of that is browser-dependent. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Should Residue on infinity be moved to Residue at infinity? Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to be misnamed—presumably "uniqueness theorem" should be a disambiguation page pointing to this theorem among others. Anyone have any suggestions for a new name for this article? Also, what are some other important uniqueness theorems that a disambiguation page could point to? Jim.belk ( talk) 02:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I moved it to uniqueness theorem for Poisson's equation. Most of the articles that linked to it plainly did not intend the uniqueness theorem for Poisson's equation, so I left most of the links to the article intact and made the newly created redirect page titled uniqueness theorem into a stub article. Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Just "original research"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I got to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_group as a redirect of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U(1) from a link in "Thus, for example, the electric charge is the generator of the U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism. " on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(physics). I was expecting to see something like
U(1) is circular, U(2) is spherical, etc.
Instead I got the general treatment of circle groups, which is next to useless for a non-mathematician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.53.14 ( talk) 01:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, any mathematical modern art experts here? Ideas on Talk:Fractal_landscape#Fractal_images.2C_art.2C_landscapes.2C_surfaces.2C_etc. on how to manage the hierarchy for computer generated art/images and fractal arts, etc. will be appreciated. That topic does need help, as discussed there.
The Mathematics and art article goes way way back in time and seems stuck in golden ratios, etc. But there is serious and interesting mathematics used in the modern approaches to computer generated imagery and should probably be discussed in a more mathematical setting.
The computer generated imagery class of articles even had source code in them (e.g. see Orbit trap !) and I am cleaning those up now. But suggestions on the topic of "Math and modern art" which I do not know that well, will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 03:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I note that activity on WP:PMEX -- WikiProject Planet Math Exchange -- is at an all-time low. I still regularly stumble across topics where WP has no article, or a stub, while PM has a slow-to-load, hard-to-grok, but non-trivial article on the topic. It'd be nice to have WP:PMEX get functioning again ... linas ( talk) 04:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
...would be helpful. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
In case someone here is looking for something to do: I was browsing the web site for the Canada Research Chair program today, and came across a few mathematicians who seem clearly notable enough to have articles here, but don't: Nantel Bergeron, David Brydges, George A. Elliott, J. F. Jardine, Stephen S. Kudla, François Lalonde, Bojan Mohar, Sujatha Ramdorai, Thomas Ransford, Christophe Reutenauer, Alexander Shnirelman, Stevo Todorcevic, Nicole Tomczak-Jaegermann, and Nick Wormald. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd really like to make the analytic number theory up to scratch - it currently reads like a random assortment of paragraphs from a textbook, with no real structure or cohesion. I've started a discussion on the talk page, and edits will be happening over the next few days - more eyes and opinions welcome. Joth ( talk) 11:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Negative and non-negative numbers has been requested to be renamed. 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 04:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
We have yet another pissing match featuring Arthur and Hans. We have long established that there is an ongoing problem with mathematics articles being inaccessible to readers, with no meaningful progress on that issue. I have created this diagram so as to help in that regard. However, it is apparently "silly" and "too simple" to be useful. Of course, by "useful" Arthur means "useful to him." I am pretty sure that "silly" is meaningless insofar as mathematics are concerned. Perhaps some other editors could provide some meaningful constructive input to the situation, something Hans and Arthur never do, at least not until after a great deal of drama. Of course I, and Hofstadter thought that something like this was perfectly illustrative. So lets see what is so terrible about it. I believe the biggest problem is pedantism. Greg Bard ( talk) 21:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's true in practice that all theorems are well formed formulas. Maybe all formal theorems are, and maybe most or all theorems could be formalized as such, but actual theorems are generally expressed as sequences of words in a natural language. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
"Among the well-formed strings occur the theorems. These are defined by an axiom schema and a rule of production ... Notice, therefore, that all false additions ... are mapped into strings which are well formed, but which are not theorems." (my italics)
Greg — stop the personal insults — they are inappropriate, counterproductive, unwanted here, against policy and sanctionable. Paul August ☎ 11:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:0.999...#Refining the paragraph over whether the lead, or more precisely the first paragraph, should include part or all of a proof of 0.999... equalling one. Other opinions on this would be welcome.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 12:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
According to Jacques Pelletier du Mans, the following claim in Long and short scales is wrong:
Jacques Pelletier du Mans used the name milliard (“milliart”) for "Million de Millions", i.e. 1012.
Apparently the following is also wrong and is apparently an incorrect and OR interpretation of what Google shows from David Eugene Smith's History of Mathematics:
The majority of scientists either continued to say "thousand million" or changed the meaning of the Pelletier term, milliard, from "million of millions" down to "thousand million". -- Espoo ( talk) 21:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that no such articles exist as of now, at least improper integral doesn't mention the method of determining convergence. Besides, Abel's test or Dirichlet test should describe their applicability to improper integrals in addition to series.-- Netheril96 ( talk) 11:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Opinions of this edit? (In my view, this rewrite gives a clearer way of explaining the proof.) Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
What concerns me more than the proof is the hideous dy/dx notation. Why would you put the d in upright type? Where the heck does this come from? Would anyone mind if I got rid of it? It's a typographical abomination. Ozob ( talk) 11:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The earlier proof, which fairly close to what Geometry guy proposes, more easily generalizes to other situations. The new proof, however, is arguably somewhat simpler and probably closer to what can be found in a first year calculus textbook, despite initially being based on a fallacy. I think, once the original proof is streamlined a bit, both proofs add value to the article. One is more useful to those just starting out, and the other useful to those encountering this material a second time in or after a first course on analysis. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 10:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, over at the disambiguation pages with links project, we've come across the disambiguation page Adjoint representation, with 67 links that need to be pointed to the correct article. I start looking into this, and then the headaches start. Could an expert help us out? Thanks, -- JaGa talk 13:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hurm. So, I'm looking at a few of these: Special unitary group, Color charge, and Root system. I'm thinking it should go like this:
What do you think? (Also, I'm under the impression, unless it specifically mentions algebras, use the group article). -- JaGa talk 01:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Partial fraction is quite a mess at the moment. One of the major issues is an overabundance of disorganised examples. I've tried to condense the principles and procedures behind these examples into a concise description. Some help with cleaning up the article, as well as a review of my edits, would be appreciated; my understanding of polynomials does not extend far beyond high school. These were my changes. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 13:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The article titled Inexact differential could use some work. The concept seems to be fairly general but the first sentence narrows it down to thermodynamics. Maybe written by someone who's studied only thermodynamics? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
...could use some work. It now starts like this:
But you can't call it dQ, unless Q exists. I'd modify the sentence if I were sure what genus the concept should belong to. 1-forms, maybe? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Something like this would work (but see below):
provided it's clear what a "mathematical differential" in general is. There's a link, but I hesitate to be sure that it's the right one.
Should this article be merged with Circle group or what? (I didn't know about circle group article till later.) 24.7.28.186 ( talk) 16:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I've just created a stub for semi-infinite, but it's rather out of my own areas of maths, so if anyone can give feedback or help improve it, I'd be very grateful! (Following the advice here. ☻) Pit-trout ( talk) 16:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
If there were a separate article on semi-infinite intervals I'd consider making this a disambiguation page. If I were somewhat confident that there ought to be such an article, I'd create it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I have alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation about this discussion; they have have views on the proper fate of the article (disambiguation page, article, deletion, or something else). CRGreathouse ( t | c) 20:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Mathematical Reviews classifies " semi-infinite programming" as 90C34 in its Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC2010). Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
The T.O.C. of this page listed a section titled "Semi-infinite stub created". In the T.O.C., you can't tell that "semi-infinite" is a link, so I thought: Yet another of those interminable War-and-Peace-length ("semi-infinite") articles where if you somehow succeed in scrolling all the way to the bottom, it says "This article is a stub." Usually I just delete the "stub" tag. But I guess that's not what it is this time. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Some discussion is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacks spiral. Will Orrick ( talk) 15:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Padé approximant tells about existence, uniqueness and usefulness, but not a hint about how to construct one, unless I'm too thick to see it. (I looked about some with Google, with no better luck.) Is it a black art? — Tamfang ( talk) 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Really I meant to urge that the article (rather than this page) should have a better explanation! — Tamfang ( talk) 03:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
In combinatorial convex geometry, the Shapley–Folkman lemma concerns the approximate convexity of Minkowski sums of non-convex sets; the Shapley–Folkman lemma is used in mathematical economics, optimization, and probability.
The article has received a substantial (Wikipedia) peer-review. The additional suggestions (including article assessment) of mathematicians would be especially helpful now.
Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 19:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Chebyshev cube root needs references. There seem to be five books that can be found via Google, and some papers. If someone can figure out which parts of which sources should be cited in which parts of the article before I or someone else gets to it, that would be useful. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Opperman's conjecture, concerning the distribution of primes, is an orphan, i.e. no other articles link to it except the list of mathematics articles. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I think we have something like a consensus that things that can be found in every textbook that covers an article's topic do not need inline citations. Motivated by a dispute at logarithm and by the suspicion that wikipedantry helped create the climate in which some rather experienced editors resort to plagiarism because they feel V and NOR leave them no other choice, I have proposed an addition to WP:V. See WT:V#When a reliable source is required. Hans Adler 16:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know the status of MuPAD? Has it been discontinued? I have started a discussion on this at Talk:MuPAD. Yaris678 ( talk) 17:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The OEIS interwiki prefix has been broken: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences links. PrimeHunter ( talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed {{ Infobox integer sequence}} being applied to some articles. I'm just pointing out its availability, without comment as to whether it's appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm a law student, and I created class representative as a redirect to lead plaintiff. Then I discovered that "class representative" is also a mathematical term. So, as a courtesy, I changed the redirect into a disambiguation page. However, I do not have any mathematical background, so I do not feel qualified to populate "your" section of the disambiguation page. Currently the page is not compliant with wikipedia stylistic rules. So I would like to invite someone here to fix "your" section of the dab page, either by creating a stub for class representative (mathematics), or by formatting your dab section some other way. Thanks.
- AGradman / talk / how the subject page looked when I made this edit 21:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
A math related image has been nominated for FP. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Maze Generation for discussion.-- RDBury ( talk) 04:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
At talk:Logarithm we have a discussion (prolonging a previous one at talk:complex number) about the markup of mathematical standalone formulas. DVdm and JohnBlackburne make it a point that standalone formulas like
have to be formatted using <math> markup, such as
Their main argument is WP:MOS, which says "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article". I contest this point of view, based on the idea that using math markup (where not necessary) as opposed to HTML markup in standalone formulas, creates more inconsistencies than really necessary. Can someone with with a cool head please have a say? Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 20:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
See Talk:Symbolic computation#Merger with computer algebra system Yaris678 ( talk) 14:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Someone changed Orthogonal basis from a redirect ( Orthonormal basis) to a new article. The redirect was a bit dodgy because the concepts, while related, are different and the other article doesn't really cover the subject. On the other hand, the concepts are similar enough that they could be covered in the same article. Orthogonal bases often appear in contexts, such as orthogonal polynomials, where insisting on unit length would only introduce a lot of pesky square roots into computations, so they are a legitimate subject in their own right. If there is to be a separate article then the stub should be expanded and if not then material should be added to the other article, but it's not clear to me which way to go at this point.-- RDBury ( talk) 08:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines#Bringing this guideline in line with policy that may be of interest to others here. The short version is, an editor wants to change the guidelines to explicitly discourage the use of references to original research papers. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
(Just a courtesy note.) There has been some discussion recently about whether Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines needs to be updated to reflect current practice. This wikiproject is one of the projects that signed on to this guideline in the past. If you have any comments or concerns about the guideline, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines.
If we decide that we don't want to be associated with the guideline any more, it would be possible to remove our project from the list at the top of the guideline page. However, keeping the guidelines up to date seems like a better option to me. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 18:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking about the formatting we use for the capital letter I to denote an interval; say I = [0,1]. I really don't like how this letter looks in this font. What about using the teletext font I instead? You get this by typing <tt>I</tt>. Which do you think looks better I = [0,1] or I = [0,1]? I know that and are options, but the former has alignment problems and the latter looks more or less the same; except for the loading time and the other browser settings that people might have. What are your opinions on the matter? — Fly by Night ( talk) 23:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
From where I'm viewing this, the teletext version looks good, in that it has serifs where the italic I does not, and is slanted like the italic I. But I don't know how much of that is browser-dependent. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Should Residue on infinity be moved to Residue at infinity? Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to be misnamed—presumably "uniqueness theorem" should be a disambiguation page pointing to this theorem among others. Anyone have any suggestions for a new name for this article? Also, what are some other important uniqueness theorems that a disambiguation page could point to? Jim.belk ( talk) 02:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I moved it to uniqueness theorem for Poisson's equation. Most of the articles that linked to it plainly did not intend the uniqueness theorem for Poisson's equation, so I left most of the links to the article intact and made the newly created redirect page titled uniqueness theorem into a stub article. Work on it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Just "original research"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I got to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_group as a redirect of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U(1) from a link in "Thus, for example, the electric charge is the generator of the U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism. " on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(physics). I was expecting to see something like
U(1) is circular, U(2) is spherical, etc.
Instead I got the general treatment of circle groups, which is next to useless for a non-mathematician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.53.14 ( talk) 01:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, any mathematical modern art experts here? Ideas on Talk:Fractal_landscape#Fractal_images.2C_art.2C_landscapes.2C_surfaces.2C_etc. on how to manage the hierarchy for computer generated art/images and fractal arts, etc. will be appreciated. That topic does need help, as discussed there.
The Mathematics and art article goes way way back in time and seems stuck in golden ratios, etc. But there is serious and interesting mathematics used in the modern approaches to computer generated imagery and should probably be discussed in a more mathematical setting.
The computer generated imagery class of articles even had source code in them (e.g. see Orbit trap !) and I am cleaning those up now. But suggestions on the topic of "Math and modern art" which I do not know that well, will be appreciated. History2007 ( talk) 03:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I note that activity on WP:PMEX -- WikiProject Planet Math Exchange -- is at an all-time low. I still regularly stumble across topics where WP has no article, or a stub, while PM has a slow-to-load, hard-to-grok, but non-trivial article on the topic. It'd be nice to have WP:PMEX get functioning again ... linas ( talk) 04:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
...would be helpful. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
In case someone here is looking for something to do: I was browsing the web site for the Canada Research Chair program today, and came across a few mathematicians who seem clearly notable enough to have articles here, but don't: Nantel Bergeron, David Brydges, George A. Elliott, J. F. Jardine, Stephen S. Kudla, François Lalonde, Bojan Mohar, Sujatha Ramdorai, Thomas Ransford, Christophe Reutenauer, Alexander Shnirelman, Stevo Todorcevic, Nicole Tomczak-Jaegermann, and Nick Wormald. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)