Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2017

Jan 2017

Strange capitalization

I wonder, why some words in section titles become capitalized, here: [2], [3], [4]. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It is an error. See MOS:SECTIONS: "headings are in sentence case, not title case". Ozob (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about mathematics is updated - Skysmith (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Algebraic geometry stubs

I have proposed to create a template for stubs in algebraic geometry. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2017/January#Algebraic geometry stubs.

By the way, a similar problem occurs with the fields in {{maths rating}}. D.Lazard (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

A lot of these stubs are pretty low quality, and could use going over by someone with some knowledge of the subject (or even just Wikipedia experience). I've cleared out a couple of stale merge proposals, and added a reference, but there is much more work to be done. Some of these stubs really could use expansion as well. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Top-cited missing journals

WP:JCW, a compilation of 'journal' citations on Wikipedia has recently been updated (see old thread). The top-cited missing journals/works of mathematics are

• Rank 51 Astat info
• Rank 333 Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications
• Rank 417 Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics
• Rank 493 Illinois Journal of Mathematics
• Rank 577 Aequationes Mathematicae
• Rank 653 Congressus Numerantium
• Rank 766 Czechoslovak Mathematical Journal
• Rank 766 Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications
• Rank 894 Journal of Geometry
• Rank 940 Axiomathes
• Rank 940 Journal of Mathematical Sciences
• Rank 940 Nagoya Mathematical Journal

If members of this project could help writing those articles, that would be much appreciated. See our journal-writing guide at WP:JWG for help on writing these articles. Note that some of these might be better as sections of another article (usually publisher, or affiliated society), similar to Australia ICOMOS#Historic Environment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Functionals, functional derivatives, functional integration and functional equations

Oops, I intended this for the reference desk (wider audience), but mistakenly posted here. I moved it to here YohanN7 (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Cubinder , Needs improvement with formulae, sources and additional information. (Unlisted)

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I am in the process of creating an article about the 4D shape, the “cubinder”. It was previously red linked on other articles, and I was surprised to see it was not already an item listed for creation by Wiki Projects Mathematics, as the duocylinder and spheriender are already articles. I require help to improve the draft, as I require more formulae, sources, and additional information to create this article. You can access this page at User:Darnburn98/Cubinder, please come on over and help improve this article to get into the main space!Darnburn98 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Factoriangular number‎

After a unsuccessful prod, I have nominated for deletion this article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factoriangular number‎‎, and, please, discuss there. D.Lazard (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors See submissions through external academic peer review Format accepted articles Promote the journal Authors Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review) Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Transformation matrix error

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_matrix

In perspective projection section should be x' = x/w_c and y' = y/w_c instead of x' = x/z and y = y/z

That's meant to be a projection onto the plane $z=1$. In homogeneous coordinates, this is the plane $w_{c}=z$, so actually either form is correct, and the version with z in the denominator seems more natural to me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, the affine coordinates of the image are $(x',y',1),$ and the homogeneous coordinates of the same point are denoted here $(x_{c}:y_{c}:z_{c}:w_{c})$ (note the colons). As the homogeneous coordinates are defined up to the multiplication by a scalar, for defining affine coordinates, they can be used only in a homogeneous way (that is the numerator and the denominator must be both linear in homogeneous coordinates), which is not the case when you write $x'=x/w_{c}.$ D.Lazard (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Feb 2017

Brown–Gitler spectrum

The new article titled Brown–Gitler spectrum could use some work, if it's worth keeping. (1) No other articles link to it. (2) Its content is skimpy and is imperfectly written. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Geodesics on an ellipsoid

Inlinetext recently deleted large portions of this article. This user might be banned user Crapscourge who did the same thing to this article back in September 2014 using the same kind of language in edit summaries. Could some administrator roll back the edits by Inlinetext? Jrheller1 (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Three minutes of poking around suggests both that it is the same editor and that the article in question would be improved by deleting textbook-y material, long derivations, etc. --JBL (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that the article is in a quiescent state, I will give it a pruning this weekend. cffk (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I am opening a sockpuppet investigation of Inlinetext. Perhaps some sections of the article could be shortened, but I doubt that Inlinetext would be the best person to do this. Jrheller1 (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think far too much has been tossed out in the recent culling (more than half of the article). This content should be restored, and discussed piecemeal. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

These points are also both very believable. --JBL (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I undid all Inlinetext's edits by using the "compare selected revisions" feature going back to the edit before Inlinetext's first edit. Didn't realize this feature existed until looking at the Wikipedia undo documentation [5]. Jrheller1 (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

And in the course of doing this you also undid my contributions so that the TeX is inferior to what it was. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I restored your LaTeX edits to the original article text. Jrheller1 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Formatting of Leibniz notation

There is a disagreement at Talk:Differential of a function over the formatting of the Leibniz notation for a derivative. Other opinions are welcome. Ozob (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert Everist Greene

I just removed this new article from CAT:CSD. G-scholar search suggests he might be notable. Any thoughts? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The usual standard is WP:ACADEMIC. Merely publishing does not meet that level of notability; the professor needs to be "more notable than the average professor" to put it informally. Has he won a competitive prize, a named professorship, or otherwise done something to establish his notability beyond simply being a professor? If so, then we should put it in the article; if not, then he doesn't meet the standard, although that is not in any way meant to diminish the accomplishment of being a professor. There are too many professors for us to have an article about every one of them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Crenel function

There seems to be a contradition between the text and the formal definition of the Crenel function. The text (and at least one of the references) suggests that is should be a period function, whereas the formal definition given is for an a-periodic function. A discussion about this was started but not resolved at Talk:Crenel function#What is the period??; this also impacts on a merge discussion between this page and Boxcar function - if the function is actually periodic, then a better target might be Square wave. The merge talk discussion is at Talk:Crenel function#Boxcar function. Can I ask for a mathematician or two to weigh in on these. Klbrain (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, may have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1#Support multiple DOI, ISBN, MR, OCLC

I've made a proposal to support multiple {{mr}} links in citation templates. I figure this project might be interested in that, so please comment there if you have an opinion on this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Alsosaid1987

I have some concerns over the edits of Alsosaid1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to mathematics articles. He/she seems to be motivated mostly by a desire to amp up the rigor in our math articles, even in cases where extreme formal rigor is not desirable. He/she also has been using questionable inline formatting. Specifically, on balance I find the following sequences of edits to be disimprovements. I submit them for the community's assessment and commentary: Cantor's diagonal argument, complex analysis, Series (mathematics). I see he/she has also rather extensively edited the article real analysis, and exponential function. I believe there must be some worthwhile stuff mixed in with some of this user's edits, but the poor formatting and over-the-top formalization strikes me as a problem that should be looked into. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Who the hell are you?! The previous version spend lines talking about how to compose a tangent function with a linear map from (0,1) to (-pi/2, pi/2). Of course this needed fixing! It is important to use correct language, while not wasting time with trivial detail!

Alsosaid1987 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

As I noted on my talk page, the new revision at Cantor's diagonal argument uses unexplained terminology, fails to link key terms, and uses symbols rather than words to communicate. That is not good writing for an encyclopedia, although it may be for a mathematics textbook. Also problematic are the edits to complex analysis, with the muddled insertion of the unexplained symbol $\mapsto$. I am concerned about other edits too, but I will wait until others have opined before continuing to engage on this matter. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have reviewed edits on series (mathematics). They do not improve the article and I have reverted them. However, they contain two good thing that I have reinserted (with a different formulation). In details, the bad things: restricting series to numerical series (although this is implicit for most readers, there are also non-numerical series, such as formal series and series of matrices); removing the mention that series are also called infinite series; too much technical details in the lead; mention of doubly infinite series in section "Absolute convergence" (these are not important enough to appear here, the corresponding "main article" is a better place). The good things: removing generating methods from the lead; referring to expression (however a merge between old formulation and Alsosaid1987's one is better than Alsosaid1987's formulation). D.Lazard (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I acknowledge that it was an error to limit the discussion to numerical series. Thanks for catching this. My main problem with the article was the mention that series are infinite sums. Sure, they are informally so, but the article makes it sound like you can just add an infinite number of terms. I think your criticisms are valid, as long as the article mentions in the lead that series are to be regarded as formal objects whose value may be assigned if the limit of partial sums exists.Alsosaid1987 (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Algebraic-geometry-stub

The template {{algebraic-geometry-stub}} has been accepted, and I have created it. For the moment, it has the same image as {{geometry-stub}}. A better suited image would be helpful. Please, modify the stub template, when editing a stub relevant to algebraic geometry. D.Lazard (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for letting me know. --Jimmy Alsosaid1987 (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Fmadd and destruction of article leads

I just saw an edit by User:Fmadd, which had no edit summary and was marked as minor, to the article Tensor, in which the lead of the article was completely gutted. Worried, I looked into this users edit history, and found at least two other articles Feynman diagram and Invertible matrix, where the same thing happened. I have reverted these edits, but there are hundreds of possibly questionable edits that need to be checked. He has been very busy indeed with these "minor" edits. Sławomir Biały (talk)

they weren't 'gutted', I just seperated things out into a few headings, making it easier to link to things Fmadd (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD. An article is supposed to have a lead to serve as a capsule version of the article. Readers are already complaining on the talk page there that the article was more difficult to read after your questionable "minor" edits, which is how I came to notice them in the first place. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I do think that this version of the lede is too short: [6]. The lede can't have all the article content, but it should summarize all the broad points of the article. In a short article, the lede will be shorter, but in a long article the lede may be several paragraphs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Not only did this edit shorten the lede inappropriately, by simply breaking the content in the lede into sections, it disrupted the rest of the article. Paul August ☎ 13:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This user has now been blocked indefinitely, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#OVERLINKING and redirect problems. Paul August ☎ 11:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Uriel Rothblum

The following looks to me like what would appear in an article created by copying and pasting from somewhere else:

before:

Let P denote the convex hull of the set of partitions in F, i.e., P is a polygon in Rdxp. If G is quasi-convex, then there exists a vertex which maximizes G. The poly-hedral approach studies the representations and characterizations of vertices, counts or enumerates the set of vertices and analyzes the efficiency of doing these tasks.

after:

Let P denote the convex hull of the set of partitions in F, i.e., P is a polygon in R^d×p. If G is quasi-convex, then there exists a vertex which maximizes G. The polyhedral approach studies the representations and characterizations of vertices, counts or enumerates the set of vertices and analyzes the efficiency of doing these tasks.

Before I edited it, it said "Rdxp", and the only thing I could think of that that could reasonably have meant is "R^d×p".

Before I edited it, it had "poly-hedral", with a hyphen, in the middle of a line. Usually a line-end hyphen would appear there if, but only if, it's at the end of a line, put there by a typist or by typesetting software.

A document may say this:

$\mathbb {R} ^{d}\times p\,$

and when one copies and pastes, the copy says this:

Rdxp

A document may say this:

a vertex which maximizes G. The poly-

hedral approach studies the representations

and when one copies and pasts, the copy says this:

a vertex which maximizes G. The poly-hedral approach studies the representations and

One question is whether a source from which it was copied may be subject to copyright. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It's copied from Loewy, Raphael (2012), "Uriel G. Rothblum (1947–2012)", Linear Algebra and its Applications, 437 (12): 2997–3009, doi:10.1016/j.laa.2012.07.010, MR 2966614. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Copied by User:Lermanico, see this diff. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Even the first edit creating the article as a draft was a copyvio, from https://www.informs.org/Pubs/MOR/Uriel-G.-Rothblum . I have stubbed the article down and revdelled all the old copyright-violating revisions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Supporting PageAssessments in {{maths rating}}

Hi! I maintain the metadata gadget. I've been doing some prototyping on a new version of the gadget that will try to pull page assessments from the PageAssessments API instead of munging the talk page with regular expressions (its current approach). While taking some sample API output, I noticed that {{maths rating}} does not support PageAssessments, mostly because unlike most WikiProject templates, it's not based on {{WPBannerMeta}}, which includes the new {{#assessment}} tag.

I'd like to make sure that this project's ratings are accessible through the API. To do that, I'd like to add an {{#assessment}} tag to the template. I'm thinking that this would be a straightforward drop-in: <includeonly>{{#assessment:Mathematics|{{{class|}}}|{{{importance|}}}}}</includeonly>. It'd be nice to normalize parts (e.g. using {{class mask}}) but that's not strictly necessary.

Does anyone have particular opinions about or objections to this? Thanks, {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 00:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't change the appearance of the banner, but only adds invisible metadata that makes it easier to parse, I don't see any reason to object. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Ditto. If I can't see a difference, I have no reason to object. Does our use of the label priority instead of importance on many pages create a problem? --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bill: Hmm. I hadn't looked closely enough; I stopped and started this discussion here upon reading "Please do not make any nontrivial changes to this template without proposing them at WT:WPM first" in the template source—better to consult people than have objections after the fact. The use of "priority" doesn't create a significant problem: I'll just tweak the code from the example above to use {{{priority|{{{importance|}}}}}} instead of {{{importance|}}} to compensate.

Since this doesn't seem controversial, I'll implement it now; if it's problematic we can revert the update and discuss it further. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 16:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Characterization

These two articles need work:

• Characterization (mathematics)
• Characterization theorem

The first lacks references and could use more work otherwise as well. The second is in laughable condition so far Michael Hardy (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The former is a nice article, tells the truth... but I have no idea how to source it. Terrible. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, 456 articles in nLab contain the word "characterize": [7]. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Since creating this present discussion section, I have moved Characterization theorem to Characterization of probability distributions and then redirected Characterization theorem to Characterization (mathematics). Michael Hardy (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Characterization of probability distributions is now much improved, but has only two examples and should probably have about 50. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No article for √

I mean the symbol, not the operation. Most operation symbols have separate articles, e.g. Multiplication sign, Plus and minus signs, Equals sign. But √ gets lost in "redirect hell" and the only article that comes close is Check mark. Did I miss it or should I go ahead and create an article. Or perhaps it would be better to fit into an existing article. --RDBury (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It's mentioned briefly in Table of mathematical symbols by introduction date, but without a linked article. The table calls it the "radical symbol", so that might be an adequate title for an article; currently, radical symbol is a redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This is talked about in the lead of nth root and its etymology section, too. This is the best redirect I could find. --Mark viking (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The name could be "radical symbol" or "radical sign"; I think usually the word "sign" is used for for say +, ×, etc. The nth root article does have the start of what I'm thinking about, but there is more that could be added but would be out of place in an article about the operation. E.g. ℞ was used before it started be confused with other things. Meanwhile the etymology section talks about "surd" but not the use of "root" or "radical". Also, there is some material about the symbol being Arabic in origin, and while there is a reference it doesn't seem to support what is stated, besides which it's seems to be a blog with no particular standard of reliability. --RDBury (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

All good points. If you want to create an article about the radical symbol, go for it! I've seen both radical sign and radical symbol used, but I think symbol is the more precise name for a class of glyphs. Radical sign seems to be a more informal name for it. --Mark viking (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Older texts, like Cajori, used "sign" but a more modern reference, such as Mazur (2014), uses "symbol". Cajori has a lot of material on the radical sign and, if I recall correctly, so does Smith. None of the references I am familiar with say anything about an arabic origin of the symbol, but there is considerable discussion of the arabic origin of the word "surd". I think that there is enough material available for a stand alone article, especially if the scope of the article is radix symbols, but even if the scope is restricted to the radical sign (√). (As you can see, I am a bit ambivalent about using sign/symbol.)--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Loessperson and references by I.J. Smalley

User:Loessperson appears to have the sole goal of adding references to articles by one I.J. Smalley to Wikipedia. A very brief poke suggested that these are usually topical but not necessarily top-quality references. I was not sufficiently bothered to start aggressively investigating, but I thought I would bring it to a wider audience. --JBL (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Loessperson here; ready to acknowledge a burst of enthusiasm (perhaps too much). Its the novelty and wonder of Wikipedia- hard to hang on to your sense of proportion. Loessperson is largely dedicated to spreading the word on loess (its a one-eyed view of the world)..If you are interested in loess look at the 'Loess Ground' blog or the Loess Appreciation Group page on facebook, or head for Michigan State University's site www.loessletter.msu.edu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loessperson (talk • contribs) 09:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

requested move at Talk:Voting system#Requested move 11 February 2017

Hi all

There is a requested move discussion open at Talk:Voting system#Requested move 11 February 2017, which is of interest to this WikiProject. Thanks  — Homunq (࿓) 14:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is still not fully resolved; there seems to a clear asymptotic consensus that a move is needed, but not yet clear agreement on what the target of the move should be. Please join us and don't be afraid to be opinionated, in whatever direction; we need resolution, not equivocation. Homunq (࿓) 17:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I'm joining WikiProject Mathematics!

Hello! I'm not sure if this is the right place for discussions, but it looks active so I will say hello! Popcrate (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Popcrate! This not really a place we come to chat, this is mostly for notifications and discussions on mathematics topics. Most of us get started by just diving in editing. See the main page for some pointers on things to do. You can also monitor some pages, by adding them to your watchlist, such as User:Mathbot/Changes to mathlists and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Article alerts for articles of interest and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics for mathematical requests for help.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! Yes, any chats I post here will from now on be Discussions on Mathematics Topics =). Thanks for the welcome, and for those links! Popcrate (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"Discussions on mathematics topics" may be misleading. It's for discussions of maintenance, improvement, and creation of Wikipedia's mathematics articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Deja vu

A rash of edits by Prototypehumanoid to some basic math articles strongly reminds me of similar edits made a while ago. These anti-Greek pro-Indian edits are very similar to what I recollect. Edit summaries written in a hostile tone, removal of cited and uncited material that disagrees with his point of view, and long quotes of a peripheral nature that are then synthesized into support of his position are all present. Unfortunately I can not recall the username, pages involved or approximate date of these earlier disruptive edits. However, several editors in this project were involved in fixing things up and I hope that someone does remember the details. Thanks. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sequence of edits that would be, but this certainly bears the hallmarks of an editing pattern consistent with attempting to push a point of view rather than summarize the position of established scholarship in the area. For example, the removal of Newton and Leibniz from the lead of the Calculus article is just wanton POV-pushing. I'm certainly open to the idea that mainstream scholarship suffers from systemic bias, and I do think that alternative perspectives should be summarized, being careful to establish due weight, would be a worthwhile addition. But the sources I would start with would most likely not include Telegraph India and archaeology online. I think we're roughly in the area of WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE that makes "attributed opinions" ok, but "presenting conclusions in Wikipedia voice as if they represented established scholarship" not ok. Prototypehumanoid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be gently encouraged to find peer reviewed secondary sources (preferably in academic journals) discussing the relation of Indian mathematics to the (in many cases later) European developments, and in addition that of many other peoples and civilizations throughout time. There is an enormous body of reliable secondary literature out there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

hey, this is Prototypehumanoid. my edits are meant to be pro-truth, not anti-greek or pro-indian. i'm not an academic, so apologize for not being able to provide better academic journal references. what bothers me though is that writers here with academic background should know better. but it seems your academic circles maintain a holdover from euro-nationalistic narratives of the history of science. non-europeans that speak english are a small minority, if this were not in english, i'm sure plenty of academics would be doing this work instead of me chipping in in my amateurish way. sorry about that. but the onus of correcting your problematic narratives should not be on others. it is selective narratives like these that allow village idiots to go on your talk shows and wonder what "non-western" civilization gave to the world. mythology as history is now coming back to bite. btw, please notice, that when you say 'mainstream scholarship' - you mean mainstream western/euro-origin scholarship. about calculus - after the revision to my earlier edit, i added madhava to newton and leibniz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prototypehumanoid (talk • contribs)

"but it seems your academic circles maintain a holdover from euro-nationalistic narratives of the history of science." Yes, I've acknowledged that there is a systemic bias in the history of science. But this is not an excuse to suspend our usual sourcing requirements and allow original research into articles, and to project our own biases in the place of the systemic bias of mainstream scholarship. Sometimes the neutral point of view is not very neutral.

"non-europeans that speak english are a small minority, if this were not in english, i'm sure plenty of academics would be doing this work instead of me chipping in in my amateurish way." But there most certainly are plenty of academics that do this research and publish in peer reviewed journals (in English and in other languages). Instead of beginning with a biased caricature of mainstream scholarship, and attempting to "correct" it, we should at least try to see what it actually says. On Wikipedia, content should begin with what is actually in sources, not editor's biases. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wcherowi:, I suspect you're thinking of User:Jagged 85, but I doubt this is the same person. At least we shouldn't start with that assumption. Jagged's problems went way beyond a little aggrieved Indian nationalism — he(?) had a nasty habit of grossly misrepresenting what was in the sources he cited. He was a very prolific editor and did this in articles covering a wide range of topics until he was finally indeffed. There's more than one person in the world with a chip on their shoulder about how India doesn't get enough historical credit, and that viewpoint in itself doesn't disqualify an editor, though the editor should be counseled about WP:TIGER and WP:GREATWRONGS, and encouraged to be extra careful when editing articles on which they have a strong viewpoint. --Trovatore (talk) 08:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

"Non-europeans who speak English" should be common in India.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Orthopole

I have created a short new article titled Orthopole, which could doubtless benefit from more eyeballs. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Applications of multiple coordinate systems

Can someone who understands higher math please look at this and tell me if it is gobbledygook or useful encyclopedic information? If it's garbage, I will deal with the deletion process. If it's useful, could someone point me in the direction of where I can de-orphan it? Thanks! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The first (general) part of that article is very close to "Active and passive transformation" (also "Coordinate system#Transformations"). About the second part (applications to control engineering) I do not know. Anyway, it is too text-bookish. And the title should mention "control", since this is really the point. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Tsirel. Also, it looks like a direct copy of this OpenStax document. A possible copyvio, depending on the particulars of the CC license. --Mark viking (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes! Attribution is needed: "Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/6a122f5a-eec7-4c9a-89b2-3b3a9eb34796@1." Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I must admit I thought of Atlas (topology) when I saw the title! Personally I think the article should be deleted as it isn't really much of a topic in itself more a subsection about coordinate transformations, and the content is better dealt with elsewhere. I had a look at what articles Wikipedia has on 'Applications of ...' and there seems to be quite a few, the titles are a synonym of 'list of uses of ...' but without the 'list' which would show that they should be treated as list articles. Dmcq (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Insofar as there is a discernible topic distinct from (e.g.) change of basis, which about half of the article belabors, I believe it should be renamed to frame (control systems), and the first six paragraphs deleted. However, the only cited work does not support the nomenclature ("command frame", "frame of resolution", and "display frame"); a little googling shows that this may not be a widely used concept in control systems. I'd happily be wrong about that, but I am leaning towards a deletion outcome as well. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, everyone. I'm going to tag it for proposed deletion now with a link to this section. If someone disputes that, I'll put it at AfD and ping you guys. Appreciate the help! And of course if there is anything useful that anyone wants from the article, I can retrieve it even after deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Igor Mezic

Igor Mezic, if it's an article worth keeping, definitely needs work. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

He is an obvious pass of WP:PROF C1 (and probably others). I rescued it from BLPPROD for now, but it still needs more references. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Page move for binary quadratic form

I proposed the replacement Integral binary quadratic form -> Binary quadratic form I didn't follow "be bold" because this seemed to me to fall under "someone could reasonably disagree with the move", since I would be labeling binary quadratic forms with non-integral coefficients as secondary and perhaps people who work in quadratic forms at large would disagree. I'm posting here because I figure this is where I'll get the attention of people who really understand the implications. Here's the rationale I gave:

most people searching for "binary quadratic form" are actually looking for information about a specific type of binary quadratic form, namely, one whose coefficients are integers. I just went through all the links at the "what links here" page and found that most other pages explicitly state that the quadratic forms in question have integer coefficients, and most of the remaining ones do this implicitly. An exception is the page Paul Bernays -- he did in his work consider binary quadratic forms with more general real number coefficients. Standard textbooks, such as "Binary Quadratic Forms" by Duncan Buell, consider forms with only integer coefficients. Recent redirect traffic to this page only came through "reduction theory of forms", "class number (binary quadratic forms)" and "composition of forms". Before I edited the page this week, the brief mentions of these topics here only concerned integral forms. In my research on binary quadratic forms, I have seen one paper out of dozens discuss reduction of non-integral forms, and I have never seen any mention of composition of binary quadratic forms that weren't integral. Planetmath.org titles their main page for quadratic forms "integral binary quadratic forms" (although that page has some broken functionality). If the move I am suggesting seems sensible and is made, then "binary quadratic form" should redirect to this page and the hatnote should indicate that people searching for binary quadratic forms with other types of coefficients should see quadratic formBarryriedsmith (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, the discussion should take place at Talk:Binary quadratic form#Requested move 27 February 2017. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Mar 2017

Merge Proposal

Snapshot of monthly views, and daily averages based on month from Feb 2017. Source of Analysis: tools.wflabs.org

I created a merge proposal for Three-dimensional graph and Three-dimensional space.

Posted on talk page here: Talk:Three-dimensional_space#Merge_Proposal, but I think this may be a better place to reach more people and hear opinions. I could see this going either way, but I wanted to see other thoughts =)

Popcrate (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

" The merge must be done (and I'll do it) into Graph of a function#Functions of two variables. However as the title of the article is confusing I'll transform Three-dimensional_graph into a disambiguation page. D.Lazard (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC) "

Just saw this ^ posted in the discussion: Talk:Three-dimensional_space#Merge_Proposal. At the moment, Three-dimensional graph is now a disambiguous page Popcrate (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Bickley–Naylor functions

The new article titled Bickley–Naylor functions has two obvious deficiencies:

• No other articles link to it; and
• It doesn't say who Bickley and Naylor are.

Probably it could be improved in other ways too. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Polyhedra

Would appreciate some more contributors to Talk:Polyhedron, especially Talk:Polyhedron#Duality and citation. I am asking questions and getting evasive answers. There is so much animosity coming at me that I cannot tell what is ad hominem bile and what is a genuine content issue, but whichever it is, I am unable to have a sensible discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Some context, as the discussion is long and rambling: this concerns the definition of (non-convex) polyhedra, most recently significantly modified here, and whether we should say that all non-convex polyhedra have duals or qualify that statement somehow, most recently significantly modified here (but with several reverts and reinstatements after). As for the supposed animosity of the discussion, see here and here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

If we are into the historical context we should add User talk:Steelpillow#February 2017 and Talk:Dual polyhedron. But the current content debate is what matters now. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not acquainted with (non-convex) polyhedra, but, as far as I understand, different definitions coexist in their theory. If so, then we should honestly inform the reader that this is so. I did such things sometimes, both here (Baire set) and on EoM (Measurable space#On terminology). Why not? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

"I am unable to have a sensible discussion." This is sad but does seem to be an accurate description of the situation. --JBL (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, David Eppstein and Joel B. Lewis are the two editors I have been trying to engage with. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

For idiosyncratic definitions of "trying to engage" that I will not attempt to describe, because Steelpillow's uniform answer to any attempt to understand or describe his point of view is "that's not it". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Which rather graphically illustrates the problem. Can some kind folks please take an independent look at it all? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I tried (above), but no one cares... It seems to me, no one thinks "what to do?", all think "who wins this fight?" Thus, I am of no help. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your very reasonable comments above are in agreement with David Eppstein's edits, which have amounted to a substantial improvement in the article. --JBL (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, despite this disagreement, I happen to think that Steelpillow has been a valuable contributor to the polyhedron articles, especially in his work making the articles more mathematically rigorous and better sourced, qualities that have been sadly lacking in some polyhedron contributions by other editors. But we appear to have a disagreement over whether we should settle on a single definition that is usable, rigorous, and general (my interpretation of Steelpillow's approach, which he will tell me is not what he actually means) or whether we should try to represent more equally the multiplicity of different definitions that are still used in this area (my preference in agreement with what Boris posted above). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice: both participants understand the relevant math, thus, agree in what is REALLY true; the only content dispute is, in which terms to represent THE truth in the article. We know that sometimes different (nonequivalent) definitions coexist even in most professional mathematics (examples were given), just because mathematical truth is constant in time but its treatment by mortals is not. In addition, polyhedra are treated in sources of different academic levels; no wonder if terminology varies a little, and default assumptions differ. As far I understand the policies of wikipedia, in such situation we have to represent coexisting approaches with due weights. Of course, it is somewhat subjective, what are "due weights", and which versions to ignore as marginal or obsolete. Is this the only matter of dispute? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Steelpillow's actual position in the dispute is difficult to discern from his or her comments. They tend to be oppositional but not in a constructive way. --JBL (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... @User:Steelpillow: Would you care to speak? I wonder, to what extent you (dis)agree with my description of the content dispute. Or do you prefer to wait for another "kind folks"? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, just back online. @Tsirel: Thank you. I think that a fair summary, although Wikipedia requires us to pay more attention to what reliable sources have actually said than to the ultimate truth of what they said (WP:RS, WP:NOTTRUTH, etc). I have suggested that, since this is an introductory article with only very basic mathematics, we should be guided by reliable secondary and tertiary sources on the subject, only supported by primary sources where necessary to fill in some of the detail, per WP:PSTS. Such sources typically confine themselves to Euclidean geometry and introduce the convex, star (non-convex) and dual polyhedra; they consider few if any of the many more specialist definitions in use. My attempts to describe and cite such sources have been summarily reverted, but I have not been able to get any sensible discussion of what they actually say and support, and how we should reflect that. Hence the link in my opening post here to the duality and citation discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you point to diffs where you added a source but that source was removed again and is no longer cited in the article? Because additional sources sounds like a useful thing to have. I don't recall seeing such sources added and removed but I suppose something like that could have been collateral damage of the other changes. And ironically, the best source I ended up finding for your preferred abstract-based definition is a highly specialist primary source (the Burgiel paper). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is a sequence of edits where I cited three RS, new to the article, and here the revert. With respect to the reverter's edit comment, the only cite I deleted was a duplicate of an existing cite in the same section, which was used to justify an embellishment I was removing, and I subsequently tried to restore a modified copy with the text duplication removed, but this was not accepted either and was reverted by your good self. I posted them again when I started the discussion at Talk:Polyhedron#Duality and citation, explaining that they had been reverted and asking why, so it is something of a surprise to me that they have yet to be noticed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

In the edit in question, you removed an excellent secondary source (the survey article of Grunbaum and Shepard) and replaced it with a different one. Obviously, it is not possible to defend this by vague hand-waving in the direction of Wikipedia policies about sourcing. (Incidentally, Cundy and Rollett is still being used as a source in the article; Wenninger is not, but since its history as a source in this article involves it being introduced to support a statement that it does not actually contain, I have trouble being upset by this.) --JBL (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Cundy and Rollett is a fine work, but the claim it is being used to source (the count of ten convex polyhedra with equal regular faces) is not actually in it, and the other statement supposedly sourced to it that Steelpillow is complaining about being removed ("A polyhedron created in this way is dual to the original.") is completely content-free. So if we are to continue using it as a source, it would be helpful to find some other statement that it is actually useful to source... —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

JBL is wrong to say that I removed any source. I removed one citation instance because the factoid it supported was of no great significance: as I just said, I left another instance for that source in place. What matters with Wenninger is whether it supports the current version, and in this diff I was using it to support the claims that "The dual of a uniform polyhedron can also be obtained by the process of polar reciprocation in a concentric sphere. However, using this construction, in some cases the reciprocal figure is not a proper polyhedron." which is exactly what Wenninger's book addresses. Similarly with David Eppstein, I was citing Cundy and Rollett to verify the basic nature of polyhedral duality and not any headcount. In effect I was replacing the primary citation instance which JBL wants to keep with a tertiary source, which is good. If the sentence "a polyhedron created this way is dual to the original" is content-free then it can be removed, but the citation covered also the immediately preceding text as well, so cannot be summarily deleted. Furthermore I cited C&R a second time for another aspect and that reversion remains to be explained. So, as anybody who actually cares to check the diffs properly can see, these criticisms here are not merely shallow but actually false. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Finally, something substantive to work with! The convex case is not a "factoid" -- convex prototypes are by far the best defined, most studied and most applied of all families of polyhedra. Essentially any discussion of any interesting feature of polyhedra (or polytopes in any dimension) should begin with a discussion of the convex case. Duality is a particularly good setting to do the convex case first, because convex polytopes all have duals and they can be produced by a standard technique -- thus, they exhibit in a broad family the desirable properties that one wants from a "good" notion. --JBL (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Later addition: Steelpillow has made clear below that it was a mistake to believe this comment involved substantive or constructive engagement. --JBL (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Cundy and Rollett talk about duality only in terms of polar reciprocation, and they don't give a definition of polyhedra at all. So it is a mistake to use them to support material on abstract duality, as SteelPillow was trying to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, these criticisms are simply not borne out - even downright contradicted - by the diffs which Eppstein asked for and which I provided. The "factoid" in question is the observation that a dual has the same number of edges as the original, it has nothing to do with convexity. Nowhere does my diff show a C&R cite "trying to support material on abstract duality" - they were supporting observations on the most basic of geometrical properties. I do hope that other editors are beginning to see a pattern in these criticisms. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Your diff is about polyhedra in general, not the special ones for which C&R's approach works. (They are very sloppy about what they mean by a polyhedron, but as the same part of their book states that a midsphere always exists, they are certainly not talking about polyhedra in full generality.) And the diff doesn't talk about edges at all. This incident raises to me a broader issue, which is the usefulness of popular-audience books as sources on matters where some delicacy and rigor are required to avoid misstatements. Popular books are generally less WP:TECHNICAL, and that's a good thing for our readers, but they're also generally sloppier, as this one is. And there can be an echo-chamber effect, much like the one that occurs from one Wikipedia article to another, where one popular book says something dubious (like in this case that all polyhedra have midspheres, despite having previously mentioned some deltahedra that don't) and other sources just repeat it without checking it or verifying the conditions under which it might be true. Using such sources requires extra care on the part of Wikipedia editors, to make sure that the definitions of the source and the Wikipedia article actually match and that the source is not making mistakes, not merely looking to see that it sort of looks like a statement about the same general topic.

Similarly, another of SteelPillow's preferred sources, Cromwell's Polyhedra, came under what for MathSciNet counts as highly unusual and vicious criticism for its sloppiness — see Talk:Polyhedron#Reliability of Cromwell — and SteelPillow basically laughed it off as not applying to his edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I am pleased at last to see achnowledgement that popular books are a good thing for readers but that their errors need careful clarification. In the present case Grûnbaum's papers offer several such clarifications and the one which I cited was also reverted without explanation. Then again, my diff includes deletion of the content: "the same number of edges." To claim as Eppstein does that it does not talk about edges is at best misdirection, I have only ever said that I deleted that bit and the diff is the proof of that, so I am not sure what point Eppstein is trying to make here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The fundamental property of duality is that it exchanges k-dimensional faces for (n-k-1)-dimensional faces. In the case of 3-D polytopes, this means edges for edges as well as faces for vertices. Moreover, this sentence has been part of the article for long before the current dispute. If there is anything in your edit that you feel is worth doing still then a productive way to proceed would be to post a short comment proposing the edit on the talk page, together with a short, substantive rationale, and try to build consensus for it -- the way everyone else on WP does. --JBL (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I did, and this was your response. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Your belief that you have proposed an edit together with a substantive rationale for it is mistaken. --JBL (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Being not acquainted with these sources, I can only ask some questions...

• Question 1: is there a single definition of a polyhedron that is accepted by all secondary sources?

Some reservations: (a) I treat equivalent definitions as the same definition; (b) well, not quite "all" secondary sources, but somehow the mainstream of them; some may be excluded as marginal or obsolete. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Polyhedron#A few textbook definitions for my attempt to survey the secondary sources I had at hand. Short answer: No. I didn't have Cromwell available, and his book should be included too, but it won't change the short answer. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Aha! I see. A nice survey. And a convincing negative answer. @Steelpillow: Do you agree with this negative answer? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The negative answer is correct, although I have a slightly different selection of sources to hand. It is common to define convex (or otherwise non-intersecting) polyhedra first and then to generalize to star polyhedra (for example both Coxeter and Cromwell do this). The many other kinds (such as abstract) are more advanced topics. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sо, тhe negative answer is correct. Therefore, do we restrict ourselves to secondary sources or not, anyway, we combine sources that interpret differently the term "polyhedron". Thus, according to such essays as "WP:Combining sources" and "WP:These are not original research#Accurately contextualizing quotations", we should specify the context, when citing a claim from a source. Otherwise "it would be a misuse of the source material to fail to clarify the quotation" (says the latter essay). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, it is of course a legitimate option, to first consider convex polyhedrons (unproblematic, I hope), and afterwards turn to more problematic cases. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I would add that if a general principle is the subject of a section, it can be better to enunciate the principle before turning to the convex and any other cases to discover how universal the principle is or is not. One does not want to introduce subtle complexities into the opening sentences. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion shows that, here, there is no universally accepted general principle (general definition of a polyhedron). Even, when a general principle exists, this is rarely a good thing to present it before the special cases from which it has been generalized, unless one want to be understood only by experts of the subject. In fact, one can understand the need of a generalization, and the reasons of the choices which are done for it, only if one is accustomed to the special cases. For example, understanding Lebesgue integration requires to understand why Riemann integration is not sufficient. Thus, the last post of Steelpillow shows clearly that his aim is not an encyclopaedia that is understandable by as many people as possible. It is to push his own point of view on the role of generalizations and abstractions. IMO, too much time has been spent to discuss with Steelpillow. It is time to close this discussion (IMO, by a consensus against Steelpillow claims). D.Lazard (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: Do you really push generalizations and abstractions? I ask, since I see your phrase "It is common to define convex (or otherwise non-intersecting) polyhedra first and then to generalize to star polyhedra" (above). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No I don't, I think D.Lazard may have been paying more attention to others' commentaries on me instead of what I have actually been writing. I try to push the kind of treatment seen in basic texts. The origins of polyhedra and of their duality lie in Euclidean solid geometry and this is neither a generalization nor an abstraction, but it is where most basic texts begin. While there is no universally accepted definition, there is a universally accepted starting point. As D.Lazard rightly points out, the generalizations and abstractions naturally follow on from that. If he feels that the section on duality should follow the same pattern and discuss the particular cases first before describing the well-known principle of duality and its less well-known limitations, that is a discussion we can have - note that I said it "can" be better to state it first, not that it necessarily is better. My key point in this is simply that statement of the underlying principle is well enough verifiable from multiple secondary and tertiary sources that it cannot be summarily airbrushed out (but it can and should be qualified). What is so unencyclopedic about that? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

To give an actual example of my approach to abstraction and generalizations, here I discuss demoting the abstract aspect in order to focus on the more traditional. It is part of a discussion at Talk:Polyhedra#Realizations. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Now I am rather puzzled. It seems, all participants like the same: simple first, hard afterwards. Or not? I fail to understand, what is the REAL disagreement. Is the meaning lost in long and boring quarrel about "this diff, that diff"?.. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Make love math, not war diffs. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't say I didn't warn you. --JBL (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes you did; and still, I prefer to observe it myself. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Steelpillow, after soliciting input in several different venues, you have yet to find a single person to agree with you that there is anything substantively wrong with any of the edits others have made recently to polyhedron. At some point you should learn something from this. --JBL (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tsirel: I too am puzzled. I think the best I can do is to post my proposed content here and see what folks make of it this time round:

When applied to polyhedra, the principle of duality states that there exists a dual figure construction having

• faces in place of the original vertices and
• vertices in place of the original faces and
• the same number of edges.

A polyhedron created in this way is dual to the original. Dual polyhedra exist in pairs. The dual of a dual is just the original polyhedron again. Some polyhedra are self-dual, meaning that the dual of the polyhedron is congruent to the original polyhedron.

The dual of a convex polyhedron can be obtained by the process of polar reciprocation.

The dual of a uniform polyhedron can also be obtained by the process of polar reciprocation in a concentric sphere. However, using this construction, in some cases the reciprocal figure is not a proper polyhedron. In such cases a dual polyhedron may be constructed, at the expense of high symmetry, by moving the sphere appropriately off-centre.

Abstract polyhedra also have duals, which satisfy in addition that they have the same Euler characteristic and orientability as the initial polyhedron. However, this form of duality does not describe the shape of a dual polyhedron, but only its combinatorial structure. For some definitions of non-convex geometric polyhedra, there exist polyhedra whose abstract duals cannot be realized as geometric polyhedra under the same definition.

Perhaps folks can give their critiques here? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

My critique is that you seem to be (verbosely) proposing "let's go back to the old way we did it, before all the recent changes" without in any way addressing the criticisms that have been raised on the Polyhedron talk page about why the old way was problematic, nor in any way describing any problems with the new version of that content that warrants wholesale undoing. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I endorse this whole-heartedly. --JBL (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Steelpillow, I am astonished. Before, you agreed with "Otherwise it would be a misuse of the source material to fail to clarify the quotation". And now you write, basically, "no problem with polyhedra" without restricting the class of the polyhedra. Why? Isn't this a misinformation? Did you mean something like "no problem with convex polyhedra"? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I have said before, there is a distinction between stating a principle and claiming that it is true in all circumstances. Not all the circumstances treated by introductory texts - high symmetry (regular and uniform) in both the convex and star cases - are currently mentioned, so this proposal fills that gap - the issue with polarizing the uniform set is included in that. Some other classes - including the "new" way espoused by Eppstein - are mentioned further on in the article but it is not sensible to discuss their duality before even introducing them. In particular I would suggest that the abstract discussion is too advanced for this section and I would prefer to see it relegated to the appropriate subsection, but include it in this discussion draft because others may wish to keep it. I hope these criticisms answer some of the questions that Eppstein has raised. The principle of duality for polyhedra is given in popular published works, the content I give is cited and I repeat does NOT endorse it as always true. If a clearer form of words is desirable, then fine, let's talk about that. If further citation is desirable, then fine I'll dig up some more. For example one might add something along the lines of "The principle does not hold in all contexts" and cite say Gailiunas & Sharp and/or Grünbaum & Shephard. The reason I came to this page is to try and get such issues with it sensibly discussed, not to grind on about how right I am. I hope this reduces your astonishment a little. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC) [Updated 10:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)]

P.S. On the "misuse of source material" issue, Grünbaum has written several papers which touch on the wider context of the polyhedral principle of duality, making it clear that it is not confined to the narrower focus of Cundy & Rollett and Wenninger. I can add some more citations for that if needed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "the sum does not depend on how the additions are grouped" (taken from "Summation") means, of course, that this is true always (in that context). Similarly, the phrase "Dual polyhedra exist in pairs" means, of course, that this is true always (in the given context). You try to weaken this principle, universally accepted in mathematics. I guess, you cannot find any mathematician in support of such innovation. Yes, "a clearer form of words is desirable", moreover, absolutely necessary. Otherwise you just disturb all mathematicians with patently wrong claims. Either add something like "convex", or say explicitly that "the following is an informal introduction; for the context and exact formulations see section ..." or something like that. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the phrase "Dual polyhedra exist in pairs" is universally accepted in mathematics, is this correct? David Eppstein and JBL have been criticising me heavily because they thought I was saying just that and pushing the principle too strongly. I have been concerned to answer their criticisms. Now you say I am weakening it too much. Are you now coming in from the opposite direction? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Oops, no, sorry for being not clear enough. I mean that it is universally accepted in mathematics that a statement containing free variables (the summands in my first example, the polyhedra in my second example) is interpreted as true for all values of these variables (permitted by the given context). That is, "always" is implicitly added. (See for instance [8]; there should be much better sources, but for now I have this one). And of course I agree with David and Joel that the phrase "Dual polyhedra exist in pairs" is a false claim, since it is interpreted (by default) as "Dual polyhedra exist in pairs, always". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I understand what you mean now. The remark is not central to the discussion but was intended only as an informal clarification. I have no problem if it is simply left out. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Nice. But please check all other claims contained in your text; I took this one just for example. Probably, there are more problems of the same kind. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I have updated my proposal above here by striking out the offending sentence and adding back a bullet point about edges, whose removal was objected to. I really am not aware of any other deficiencies, which of course is not to say there aren't any. Are there? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes: as has been mentioned several times on the Polyhedron talk page (and possibly alluded to by Boris Tsirelson), the first sentence is still totally misleading, a lie wrapped in obfuscation by the undefined word "figure." Moreover, you continue to simply ignore the current version (which suffers from none of these deficiencies) and the work others have put into it -- this essentially non-collaborative approach is incompatible with the basic principles of Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Now I observe that Steelpillow pushes very insistently the idea of presentation of mathematical truth in everyday language, full of inaccuracies. Quite a pity. Yes, I was warned by Joel, but hope dies last... Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am genuinely puzzled by this view. I have repeatedly answered the points raised by JBL: that the principle is stated in reliable sources and that the principle and the universality (or otherwise) of the principle are different things. Nobody has contradicted that. If "in context X, principle Y states Z" is given in RS, how does lying come into it? How does an editor's opinion of truth trump verification? I seem to be the only one here trying to focus on reliable sources. How does repeatedly advocating verification get mistaken for "pushing truth"? There has been some discussion of sources but not nearly enough to clarify that. It seems to me that the word "figure" is such a basic concept in geometry that it needs no explanation, but if people are unhappy with it I have suggested the alternative "construction", but nobody has replied to me on this. I am not ignoring the current version, I am proposing a couple of changes to it for reasons which I have given over and over (a statement of duality before turning to the convex case, and the inclusion of the uniform case) and which nobody has yet answered with any clarity. The draft which I give above is indeed modified from my earlier efforts in the light of the current version, and some of those updates are discussed in this very thread. Where a problem has been clearly identified, I have been glad to modify my proposed change accordingly. Is that not a collaborative approach? So I simply cannot see where JBL's criticism is coming from, nor why Tsirel finds it so convincing. Can somebody please answer my replies here to the points still being raised against my proposal and not simply ignore my replies or dismiss them out of hand? For example, something along the lines of "you are pushing lie A as truth when you say B and your defence C is wrong because D", or, "in geometry, a general object is nowadays usually referred to as an 'E' and not a "figure" or a "construction", or whatever, would be very helpful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

"the principle and the universality (or otherwise) of the principle are different things"? I am not acquainted with such terminology. I just never faced it (in mathematics). We have statements; they are true or false; etc. But what do you call "principle"? Having a generally wrong statement, can we always call it a "principle"? Or only under some conditions? Which conditions, and why? For instance, may I say "Principle: functions have derivatives", or not? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, not quite never; we have "Littlewood's three principles of real analysis". That article says they are heuristics, so that nobody should confuse them with theorems. They are intentionally vague. But this is an exception, very rare in mathematics (and, I guess, permitted only to such great minds as Littlewood). I think so, and I wonder, what other thinks. If indeed we state a "principle", we must say very clearly that this a heuristic. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course in that case there actually is sourcing to support the name and the phrasing -- unlike the SP approach of making a false statement unsupported by sources, writing it to include made-up unsourced terms, then declaring it a "general principle" without sources, then complaining about a version in which the corresponding statement is sourced. (Can we all tell how fed up I am with this?) I for one accept D. Lazard's suggestion to call this discussion over, with a consensus rejection of Steelpillow's position and arguments. --JBL (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

In reply to Tsirel: To me, a "principle" is whatever some RS says it is. For example Lines; Soild Geometry, Macmillan 1935, p.159 (which I have to hand at this moment) decribes an ability to interchange certain statements about vertices, faces and suchlike to yield dual pairs of statements and these are examples of "the principle of duality". He then gives some examples of dual polyhedra. Wenninger, Dual Models, CUP 1983, p.1 uses the phrase "duality relationship". It arises in projective geometry as a formal theorem, where the process of reciprocation about some quadric surface (usually a sphere in the present case) yields a dual construction. Its application to polyhedra in Euclidean space causes some problems because projective duality is not a theorem of Euclidean geometry. Duality appears in different geometrical guise in the division of any compact, unbounded manifold into polygons, for example on a topological sphere a polyhedron and its dual are equivalent to a dual pair of planar graphs. This kind of property can be further abstracted to yield certain characteristics which may be used to define a polyhedron. But solid geometry and topology do not always agree on whether a given construction is a "polyhedron" or not. It is possible to take a figure which is a polyhedron under both approaches but its dual, when also constructed, breaks one or the other definition. Thus, the "principle of duality" (or whatever one chooses to call it), when applied to some arbitrary class of polyhedra, may or may not be valid. There are many complexities to these arguments, some highlighted for example by B. Grünbaum and G. C. Shepard; "Duality of Polyhedra", Shaping Space: A Polyhedral Approach, (eds. Senechal & Fleck) Birkhäuser, 1988, p.205 ff, For example they make the point that the principle (which they describe as a "statement" from "folklore") implies a unique dual, which is valid in topology or combinatorics but not in geometry. My approach mirrors theirs, to make the statement first and then to give examples of its applicability (or otherwise). If I am wrong in borrowning Lines' old terminology, is there a more suitable term? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

So, according to Steelpillow, there are secondary sources that consider not quite defined notions and their not quite proved properties. I do not know whether these sources exist and are notable; if they do, let them be mentioned with due weight, in a separate section, with a clear indication that this is "not quite math". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Vertical Plane / Horizontal Plane / Vertical and Horizontal

The state of the first of these three articles is atrocious:

• Vertical plane
• Horizontal plane
• Horizontal and vertical

The other two are not great either.

I came to these because Horizontal and vertical was listed in the category "flat earth theory", which made no sense to me. I realize what they were referring to is the flat earth approximation. I think it should be removed from that category, but I'm asking for more thoughts on that on the talk page here: Category_talk:Flat_Earth_theory#Horizontal_and_vertical.

Welcome your feedback on what to do on any of these issues. I am open to collaborating to fix Vertical plane. I'd like to see these articles looking more like Horizontal coordinate system. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Flat Earth aside, "vertical" is sometimes used in advanced mathematics in the context of foliations; "vertical plane" could be treated as an elementary case of it, see Foliation#Flat space. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Sorry, I don't have an B.A., M.A. or PhD in math, just a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering. LOL. I don't think our readers will have the first clue about something as advanced as linear algebra. I don't object to having a formal definition in the article somewhere if WP:RS secondary sources support the definition, but I wouldn't make that the focus of the article for lay readers. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Really, my intention was to seek some help from other mathematicians, since I myself have too slight idea of foliations. On the other hand, electrical engineering is closer to math than other engineering; does it avoid linear algebra? Note also a nice elementary phrase from the linked article: " the 2-dimensional leaves of a book are enumerated by a (1-dimensional) page number"; something like that could be used...Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Engineering is very mathematical, but I wouldn't say electrical is more mathematical than the other fields. Aerospace I believe uses incredibly complex differential equations to describe airflow, and I know Mechanical's use of fluid flow and Fourier transforms to model physical structures is hardly any simpler than the modelling dynamic electrical networks and integrated circuit devices. I didn't take Linear Algebra until years after my M.S.E.E., when I thought about getting an M.A. math, but changed my mind about that. I get "the 2-dimensional leaves of a book are enumerated by a (1-dimensional) page number". Might not be the best example since a page number is a discrete number and is abstract, whereas the page is a physical object in continuous 2-D space. I would use the edge of the page instead. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Critical mathematics pedagogy

I'm unhappy with the Critical mathematics pedagogy article, but I don't know enough about mathematics education to put it in its proper context. It looks as if it has been written without a broad view of the topic. --Slashme (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I suspect the article and the subject of "critical mathematics pedagogy" are entirely dishonest and their real purpose is the pursuit of political power by some of those who lust after power. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"Mathematics colonizes part of reality"! I could not imagine such a mystery thriller... Boris Tsirelson (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Three mathematical related WP:AfD

Additional opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational numerals, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta numerals and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armands Strazds‎ (3rd nomination) would be welcome. D.Lazard (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Interesting stuff even if it does not survive. Maybe he is to something. This clock def. got my attention. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If you found the clock interesting, take a look at this: suranadira.com

A linguist would be shocked

I'd like to start a collection that hopefully will be both amusing and useful. But I do not know, the collection of what is it. Could it be a list article? Of which title? Do you like the idea? The (current) collection follows. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

For now I put it on my userpage: "Oddities of mathematical terminology". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

---

A linguist would be shocked to learn that if a set is not closed this does not mean that it is open, or again that "E is dense in E" does not mean the same thing as "E is dense in itself".

A set, however, is not a door: it can be neither open or closed, and it can be both open and closed. (Examples?)

Like the alligator pear that is neither an alligator nor a pear and the biologist’s white ant that is neither white nor an ant, the probabilist’s random variable is neither random nor a variable. (Alligator pear = avocado; white ant = termite.)

"Finite measure" is a measure, but "signed measure", "vector measure" and "finitely additive measure" are (generally) not measures. On the other hand, every measure is both a signed measure and a finitely additive measure. That is, "signed" means here "not necessarily unsigned", "vector" means "not necessarily scalar", and "finitely additive" means "not necessarily countably additive". See also Measure (mathematics)#Generalizations.

Unbounded operator on X means "not necessarily bounded operator, not necessarily defined on the whole X".

In mathematics, a “red herring” need not, in general, be either red or a herring.

---

And then there's the "constant random variable". Barryriedsmith (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Aha, the list is growing! Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And every differential equation is a stochastic differential equation but most stochastic differential equations are not differential equations.
But I seriously doubt that any linguist would be shocked by all this. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

And Dirac delta function is not a function.

This case provoked a dispute in July 2016. This list could be instrumental in such disputes.

About linguist, you gave me an idea to ask on WikiProject Linguistics. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I wrote a blog article about this a few years ago. It has some examples. —Mark Dominus (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see! Who is Ranjit Bhatnagar? I guess, the lead programmer mentioned in "Sissyfight 2000". I fail to get any response from wikipedian linguists. "Adjectives in mathematics are rarely nonstandard"? Not so rarely, I'd say. The adjective "generalized" is (usually) nonstandard, and many others are sometimes nonstandard.

Taking into account that you came to Wikipedia already in 2002, I would be glad to know your opinion: can this staff be a list article? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I would guess that less than one in a fifty uses of mathematical adjectives is nonstandard. The standard examples are extremely numerous. Consider, for example, compact spaces, separable spaces, normal spaces, regular spaces, connected spaces, first countable spaces, second countable spaces, Polish spaces, Hausdorff spaces, contractible spaces, metric spaces, T₀ spaces and six other kinds of Tₓ space, locally compact spaces, path-connected spaces, and so forth, all of which are kinds of spaces. In contrast, nonstandard examples are few and far between. Repeat the previous exercise for sets or groups: for every odd counterexample (a hom-set is not in general a set) there are dozens of non-counterexamples (finite sets, partially ordered sets, recursive sets, etc.)

In my opinion, I don't think this should be a list article, for two reasons. You would need a reliable source attesting that your examples are “oddities”. Also, although I find the topic interesting, it is not clear to me that it is of encyclopedic value.

There might be more value in an article on the use of mathematical pejoratives, if a source could be found. Mathematicians have a great variety of pejorative adjectives such as trivial, irregular, nonstandard, degenerate, inadmissible, which may have different connotations. There is also the mathematical use of words like trivial, obvious, easy, clear, straightforward, routine, and so forth that may connote different kinds of simplicity. For example one term may connote a long but uninteresting calculation and another may describe a claim that follows immediately from something already known. —Mark Dominus (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea, and I am reminded of "List of chemical compounds with unusual names".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this precedent case! Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Some mathematicians may also be shocked by this kind of things. I have recently inserted in the lead of Quadric the assertion that "a degenerated quadric is generally not considered to be a quadric." In fact, a pair of planes is rarely considered as a quadric, although it is an algebraic set of degree 2. This has been the subject of thread in the talk page. By the way, I am not sure whether cones and cylinders were considered (in classical geometry) as quadrics or, only as degenerated quadrics. D.Lazard (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Arnold Ross

I wrote an article on Arnold Ross (mathematician from Ohio State) several years ago. It focuses more on the educational program he founded as (1) he's best known for it, and (2) that's what the sources covered. I don't want his academic career to be a blind spot, though, so I'm looking for suggestions on secondary sources that I might have missed. If you can help, probably best to follow up on the article's talk page. Thanks! czar 06:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

formatting

$\left|y[n]\right|=\left|\sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }h[n-k]x[k]\right|$

$\leq \sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }\left|h[n-k]\right|\left|x[k]\right|$ (by the triangle inequality)

${\begin{aligned}&\leq \sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }\left|h[n-k]\right|\|x\|_{\infty }\\&=\|x\|_{\infty }\sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }\left|h[n-k]\right|\\&=\|x\|_{\infty }\sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }\left|h[k]\right|\end{aligned}}$

I copied the above from BIBO stability. It appears that the reason why "align" is not used throughout, but only in the last three lines, is the need for the link to Triangle inequality. Otherwise one would write something like this:

${\begin{aligned}\left|y[n]\right|&=\left|\sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }h[n-k]x[k]\right|\\&\leq \sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }\left|h[n-k]\right|\left|x[k]\right|\quad {\text{(by the triangle inequality)}}\\&\leq \sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }\left|h[n-k]\right|\|x\|_{\infty }\\&=\|x\|_{\infty }\sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }\left|h[n-k]\right|\\&=\|x\|_{\infty }\sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }\left|h[k]\right|\end{aligned}}$

Is it too much to hope that we can have some sane way of formatting properly while including links? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I can see why it’s happening but don’t have suggestion as to how to fix it. TeX align works only within a single block of formulae. So to align the lines they need to be in the same block, but they cannot then contain a wikilink. If you were writing a paper you might write the whole thing in TeX, but WP articles are not like that. I can’t see an easy way around this, other than a fundamental rewrite of how <math> formulae work.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If I were writing a paper I might also use \intertext{}. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I might suggest assigning an equation number to the equation which needs explanation and then adding at the bottom "(1) by the triangle equality" or similar. --Izno (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, or in this case just say something in a sentence afterwards like "The triangle inequality justifies moving the absolute values into the sum in the second line". Another thing to keep in mind is that many of our viewers see these equations on narrow-width mobile devices, and it is helpful for them to keep the line lengths down (because that translates into keeping the font size in the formula large enough to read). So pulling the text explanation out of the equations helps in that respect. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Francis Buekenhout

The new article titled Francis Buekenhout needs some proper inline citations.

(I rearranged it to put the occasion for notability at the beginning, and added a few links. I also added some links to the article from other articles.) Michael Hardy (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiple integral

"Multiple integral" is a mess. Look at Sect.3.3.3 called (recently, by User:Onmaditque) "very difficult example". Also, the notion "domain normal w.r.t. axis" is used intensively but never defined. And more... Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

And now I see that the whole (former) Section 3.3 (Normal domains...) is deleted by the user mentioned above. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Mostly the edits there were disimprovements. I restored the section on normal domains, and got rid of the silly edits to the section titles. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The editor continues to disimprove the article. I have urged them to initiate discussion on the talk page before continuing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Operator (mathematics)

This article was a mess. In particular, differential operators (among other important kinds of operators) are not even mentioned in the article. IMO, with the recent edits by an IP user, this article becomes worse. Other opinions are thus needed. D.Lazard (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a problem that operator (mathematics) formerly discussed only linear operators, but linear operator already redirects to linear map. This was clearly not an ideal situation. What is a better configuration of topics? Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

As this concerns only a single article, it is better to continue the discussion on this article's talk page. I'll thus copy the above posts on Talk:Operator (mathematics), and reply there. D.Lazard (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Abel sum------

I found that Abel summation and Abel summation method redirected to two different pages, so I did this edit. Now those two and Abel sum all redirect to the same article. But perhaps the question of their most felicitous target page could bear discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Category-theoretic categories

Please see the discussion on renaming Category:Category-theoretic categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 24. – Fayenatic London 16:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Generating function transformation

The long new article titled Generating function transformation could use some work. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Dispute over precision

There is an ongoing dispute at Pythagorean comma. Please could we have some help from someone mathematically inclined? Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I did (try to help). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have replied. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Porter's constant

The new article titled Porter's constant could use more work, including some specificity about the constant's role in understanding the efficiency of Euclid's algorithm. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's see if this link works . . . Michael Hardy (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Using a Full-stop and Comma

In all articles, most of the equations are followed by a full stop (.) or a (,). Do we really need this? Sulthan90 (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sentences are expected to be properly punctuated, even if they end in an equation. See MOS:MATH#PUNC. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The same applies when the formula is in the middle of a sentence. "Just as in mathematics publications", according to the policy cited above. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Beyond our MOS, the Knuth, et. al., paper on Mathematical writing page 4, item 23, also recommends treating an equation as an ordinary part of a sentence. --Mark viking (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

 

I really really deeply dislike this convention, but we're probably not in a place to fix it. I think it's really confusing, because the punctuation is displayed at the same level as the math, which makes it look like it should be serving a mathematical function rather than a grammatical one. It's a confusion of levels.

It's along the lines of the reason that right-thinking people have stopped moving punctuation inside quote marks, when the punctuation is not part of the text being quoted.

If the punctuation is really necessary (I think the terminal punctuation really isn't, particularly) then what really ought to happen is that it should go on a separate line. Naive TeX actually does this for you. For example, you could write something like this:

The Pythagoreans discovered that \[a^2+b^2=c^2\], where $a$, $b$, and $c$ are the two legs and the hypotenuse of a right triangle.

This renders thus:

The Pythagoreans discovered that

$a^{2}+b^{2}=c^{2}$

, where a, b, and c are the two legs and hypotenuse of a right triangle.

You'll find advice in various places as to how to avoid this "mistake", but in my view it is actually correct and the way the sentence ought to be rendered, because it puts the comma in the part of the text that it belongs in.

In practice, the bare comma starting the line is visually jarring, but my preferred solution is simply to leave it out, rather than put it where it "logically" doesn't belong. --Trovatore (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say, this happens just because articles are written in a natural (rather than formal) language. Natural language is a compromise between being logical and being convenient. Likewise I hate to see "$a+b=b+a\;\forall a,b$", but surely I cannot convince others not to treat the quantifier as just an abbreviation for the words "for all". And ultimately they are right; the translation to a formal language must anyway be done by a human that understands the natural language in spite of all that. Such is the life. As for me, this is lesser evil than that.   Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but it can be actively confusing in this context. Sometimes a period actually means something at the end of a mathematical utterance. For example, it's not unheard of to distinguish the real number 1. from the natural number 1. See what I did there? --Trovatore (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Every illogical feature can be confusing. A matter of habit. When in danger, the author should clarify somehow. A natural language prefers convenience in most cases and troubles in rare cases. Your example is rare case. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, of course. I still don't like the convention. I would prefer to just drop these punctuation marks; I don't think they really add much. The purpose of punctuation is to divide utterances up into semantic units, and when you have displayed equations, they're already pretty much divided. --Trovatore (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I see. On the other hand, in this case I am a bit disturbed by the absence of punctuation marks, such as ",", ";" or nothing. These are (at least) three different cases... Well, you may say that I can implicitly insert them myself. True. A matter of habit. Also, for me the distinction between inline and displayed formulas is mostly typographical, and I would not like two different ways of using punctuation. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Without any ambition for discussing the various manuals of rules for layout I feel pressed to emphasize that I see the reasons for confusion, the situations when perceiving danger, and the predicates natural, convenient, rare, or frequent all exposed -at high level- to confirmation bias. BTW, I'm inclined to prefer Trovatore's view. Purgy (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Even I dislike the use of these punctuations in equations as pointed out it's confusing. Wikipedia is place of team and I would like to know what practice is good for Wikipedia and Visitors? -Sulthan90 (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Regrettably, the convention that we have does seem to be the standard one in mathematical publications. If I could wave a magic wand, I'd change it, but Wikipedia is not the place for innovations. --Trovatore (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is good for WP if most editors do not mind which layout is preferred by the current gurus of the manuals, as long as the intended meaning of their contributions is upheld in the resulting edits of style. In my view a calmly growing WP appears more attractive to visitors (= good) compared to layout warring. Purgy (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Many new Wikipedians?

I have the impression that many newbie Wikipedian mathematicians are among us lately, creating new articles without knowing standard Wikipedia conventions. Have others notice that? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not observe systematically the new articles. However, I remarked that FGLM algorithm has recently been created by a red-linked user, which is newbie in mathematics, but edits other fields since around 3 years.

On the other hand, while IP and red-linked users require generally to be speedy reverted, I have remarked more cases where their edits deserve to be kept or improved. In at least one case, such an edit has been unduly reverted (see last thread of Talk:Natural number). Thus some more care in reverts could be useful. D.Lazard (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that is meant to assess a potential problem or not and how "not knowing WP conventions" materializes in articles. Generally speaking the more mathematicians we have the better and if not knowing Wikipedia conventions simply meant writing without adhering to the Wikiformat in every detail I couldn't care less. If however it meant largely unsourced writing and violations of WP:OR, then it would be an issue.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

We need a systematic way of informing them of certain basics. Maybe a template page. Among commonplace problems resulting from newbie's lack of awareness are these:

• Creating articles to which no other articles link and then not adding any links to the new article.
• Starting an article with something like this:

  Let {T_n} be a sequence of bounded linear operators on a separable Hilbert space . . .

  One must tell the lay reader at the outset that mathematics is what the article is about, and the phrase "In linear operator theory" doesn't do that (whereas "In geometry" does, and similarly algebra, number theory, arithmetic, calculus, and some others). In some cases the title of the article makes all this unnecessary, but that's not the typical case.
• Writing a biographical article chronologically, so that we find out the subject's father was a blacksmith and he attended St. Whoever's School and so forth before we find out what he's noted for, which should be in the first paragraph and not unusually in the first or second sentence.
• Miscellaneous WP:MOS and WP:MOSMATH items. Using en-dashes in page ranges and year ranges, knowing that in non-TeX notation variables should be italicized and punctuation and digits should not, some routine things about TeX usage, not using too many capital letters in section headings.
• maybe a few more items . . .

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally I don't really agree on the "importance" of all those item and in the case of the biography not even on that item itself actually, but sure providing newcomers with needed information is always a good idea as long as it doesn't creates an overload of regulation that might drive them away before they've really started.

Maybe we could modify one of those welcome templates into a special one geared towards mathematicians or editors interested in math topics.

--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Apr 2017

Digits of pi

Various redirects related to pi to various lengths have been nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 1#List of digits in pi and [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 1#Pi to (number) places. As part of the latter discussion I have suggested creating a reference page, probably on Wikibooks, of Pi to various number of digits. Your comments in both discussions, both generally and related to the specific suggestion, are more than welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Add Markov number page to the Mathematics project?

The talk page for Markov number attaches it to the Russia project, but I can't help feeling that the page is more relevant to non-Russian mathematicians than to Russian non-mathematicians! I admit a personal interest in getting the page more attention: the desire to get a a second opinion on my "disputed" annotation in the "Other Properties" section, now several months old. Chris Thompson (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I added a math project banner. Historically, we haven't done that for all of our articles, though, because they're in list of mathematics articles, so the banner is only needed if someone wants to add an actual rating of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Relevant ANI thread

There is currently a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Eyes on Teo Mora which could benefit from some motivated volunteers from this WikiProject with a keen understanding of WP:BLP. TimothyJosephWood 15:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Now at AfD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teo Mora. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Fields need your help!

We used to have a collaboration of the month or something like that a while ago. I invite all of you to work on the article about fields. It is a top-level article, should be accessible to a broad audience. Please join in making this article a showpiece of what Wikipedia can do! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-example versus counterexample

According to D.Lazard, "non-example" is an absurdity, as meaning "not an example", see his edit summary here. Well, but then a lot of articles should be changed accordingly, see here. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Continuous function, and would encourage others to do the same. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Over?-enthusiastic newish user

Newish user LithiumFlash (talk · contribs) has been editing a number of mathematics articles with information related to games; the ones I noticed are List of NP-complete problems, decidability, Mathematics of Sudoku, combinatorial explosion, perfect information, game complexity, brute-force search, and determinacy. Some of their edits are clearly fine, but I've seen questions raised separately by CBM and David Eppstein about others and wanted to draw a bit more attention. My interactions suggest that the user is good-natured but doesn't really understand the important of sourcing, and probably doesn't have a good grasp of the mathematical issues raised by some of their edits. --JBL (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Just let me know if you see any material I added that is not properly referenced. I'll be happy to go back and help amend or improve such statements. Also, please be advised that in some cases my edits were to address exactly the issue that you have raised. In more than one instance I have added or tags related to statements added by other users. These were removed without resolution at any Talk page. An example is here: User_talk:David_Eppstein.—LithiumFlash (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Envelope model

Hi, I would really appreciate some independent expert eyes to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Envelope_model. I simply have no idea if this is a genuinely important topic in stats or not. Your contributions are greatly appreciated! Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ping - @Joel B. Lewis:, would you mind pinging anyone else who may be interested? Thanks! Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Not really my specialty but I'll try to look into it this week. --JBL (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

and @Sławomir Biały: (I nearly forgot a fellow countryman...) Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

'jackson' ?

Nine years ago, this image was uploaded with the claim that it illustrates 'Jackson's Theorem' on representing higher dimensions. I've found no evidence of such a theorem existing, but this isn't my field and I may not be able to think of the right search terms. So (leaving aside its low quality), is this a legitimate image? DS (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be part of some nine-year-old chatbot spam (see User:Superchild123 and note that that user's only contributions were the creation of that user page and some older now-deleted images). I think the image and the user page are both safe to remove. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't look serious to me. --JBL (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

To be 100% fair, the Superchild thing was an issue of reusing image names: deleted contribs show that the account uploaded some guy in a labcoat as "jackson.jpg" in March '08, and the crumpled-up paper was uploaded in May '08. But since you confirm that it's garbage, I'll file a deletion notice on Commons. DS (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

GF(2)

Please see Talk:GF(2)#Higher-order fields (since I don't think that talk page is watched by many).--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Propagation of errors resulting from algebraic manipulations

Propagation of errors resulting from algebraic manipulations, currently a redirect to Propagation of uncertainty, has been nominated for deletion. The discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 16#Propagation of errors resulting from algebraic manipulations needs input from those with knowledge of the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Moving onto the next topic: Is there anyway that this is right?

I would move on to the next next topic. "onto" is a perfectly respectable word and "on to" is a perfectly respectable phrase and they mean two different things. I would not move "onto" the next topic. Likewise "anyway" and "any way". So how about this edit? One could maintain that "plug in" is a phrasal verb used here. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this convincing enough? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It's quite a hubris to plug my opinion on this topic into your attention, but having plugged in that I consider replacing the phrasal verb "to plug in" by the more elaborate "to apply a substitution homomorphism" as a dramatic exaggeration, it's conceiveable that imho any editing along these lines is somewhat excessive nitpicking on both sides. On a more personal side, I faintly prefer the use of non-phrasal verbs, if possible. :) Purgy (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Purgy Purgatorio: Are you missing the point as completely as possible or did I miss something. I did not object to the phrase "plug in". Michael Hardy (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I obviously missed both of your intentional abuses in the title, and, perhaps wrongly, assumed you taking sides strictly against the cited edit. I apologize for any discontent I might have caused with my remarks.

Even in the light of the link given by Tsirel, to me there are both variants obviously feasible, (therefore) a discussion about this is nitpicking in my valuation, and I agree to Sławomir Biały, enjoying the XKCD-link.

Of course, I may be wrong, but in any case I never intended to be offensive or to hurt someones feelings. Purgy (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: To avoid further nitpicking I wont take part in the RfC below, even when strongly disliking and/or. Purgy (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

All I have to say is [9] --JBL (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Can we just abolish the phrase "plug in" from all mathematical discourse and be done with the matter? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

An extra set of eyes on Quartic Function please?

I've run through the Ferrari method with two depressed quartics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartic_function#Ferrari.27s_solution) one worked fine (x^4-5x²+10x-6), but one gave all roots times -1 (x^4+5/8x²-5/8x-51/256). I used a spreadsheet, so they are both using the same equations. I followed the derivation to produce the equation, and it seems valid. Can someone else please look at it to see if there is a problem? I've started a discussion on the article talk page. Is there a point where sometimes the negative square root must be used, while other times it's the positive square root?Beakerboy (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Is "multiplicative inverse" the primary meaning of "reciprocal"?

There's a discussion on whether reciprocal, now a disambiguation page, should instead redirect to multiplicative inverse (with the disambiguation page moved elsewhere). Please participate at Talk:Reciprocal. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Parallel projection

User:SharkD removed a new version of the article parallel projection, which I recently wrote. I would appreciate a third opinion on the talk page of the article. Thank You !--Ag2gaeh (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Poincaré plot

The article Poincaré plot looks short to me. Can someone take a look at it? Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Combinatorial Mathematics Society of Australasia

Combinatorial Mathematics Society of Australasia is newly created article which was moved directly to the mainspace from User:McKay/sandbox by its creator. The draft does not seem to have been submitted for review, and based upon its name it might fall within WP:WPM's scope. Anyway, I was wondering if someone from this WikiProject would mind taking a look at it and assessing it. Most of the sources cited appear to be primary ones, so it's not clear where the organization satisfies WP:NORG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Additional eyes please on Exponential response formula

I'm requesting that some editors with more experience with math topics take a look at a relatively new article, Exponential response formula, by a relatively new editor, Wandalen. I haven't looked at enough of the articles in this project to have a good idea what constitutes sufficient notability, or how examples should be styled. Thanks. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, it is definitely a real thing and probably one can find textbook references. I suppose it is possible that the material exists under other names (but I don't have suggestions, sorry). --JBL (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I have redirected to ordinary differential equation#Summary of exact solutions. --Izno (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That table is horrible! --JBL (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been unredirected and the creator has approached me on my talk page:

Hello Izno, I'm trying to bring here information which the encyclopedia does not have. I spent much a day of my free time reading articles and writing topic on math to share my knowledge with others. Wikipedia had no word about material which I'm trying bring here. I don't think that deleting the page without any word, message or discussion is an appropriate act. I don't feel that I'm welcome here and don't understand reasons for your hatred of new people on the platform.

The page on which you did redirection removing whole my article has nothing about ERF. If you are a mathematician, please let's talk how can we improve it. Wandalen (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The target article does indeed cover ERF in that it covers the precise-same content as the topic called an "ERF" as presently in the article. @Michael Hardy: CC. Perhaps this is a less-general article to redirect it to, but I would guess the content already exists on Wikipedia, if not exactly in the form you have added. This is normal editing behavior. --Izno (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

By "the target article covers the same material" you mean that there is an entry in that awful table? This obviously does not preclude a stand-alone article. (Even more thorough coverage would not preclude it: for independently notable solution methods, I would expect an article like ordinary differential equation to have a brief summary and a {{main}} link.) Also, to the extent that what you are doing is making substantive discussion about the fate of the article (as opposed to drawing the attention of other editors), the article talk page is a much better venue. --JBL (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The talk page of an article is occasionally insufficient, especially when the topic has been broached already in a more-communal venue. I could also have left a "Look over here again".

As for "awful table", I would tend to agree, that table is awful. But regardless of the presentation there, I would expect this to be at a more-general article than one dealing specifically for the "response function" that is simply a typical solution to a linear ODE. --Izno (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't understand your last sentence; what is the referent of "this"? --JBL (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The information regarding an ERF. --Izno (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Izno help me to improve the page, please. I'm going to contribute to the page on weekends if you won't throw it in garbage. Saying ERF is typical solution to ODE is same as saying wolf is a mammal, lets make redirection from wolf page on mammal page and put all mammals in a table. Appreciate any help. Wandalen (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There is less here than meets the eye. All the facts in the article would fit in a new line in Ordinary differential equations#Summary of exact solutions, and are covered adequately in Green's function. See Talk:Exponential response formula#Merge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Alladi–Grinstead constant

Greetings all. Earlier today, I noticed a new page, Alladi–Grinstead constant, which looked in need of cleanup and reworking. I took a stab at it, but someone with a stronger background in number theory could probably do better. Another new page, Lueroth constant, should perhaps be merged into it, since the one constant is just the exponential of the other less one. XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Templates and Navigation for Mathematics Articles

I've been working out a Template for "A Series on Discrete Mathematics", based on some of these:

More examples of these sort of things:

• Template:Science
• Template:Philosophy_sidebar
• Template:Platonism
• Template:General_physics
• Template:Electromagnetism

Examples more related to specific Mathematics topics

• Template:Calculus
• Template:Group_theory_sidebar

I think these sort of templates would add some structure to the Mathematics part of Wikipedia. What are people's thoughts on this? --- Popcrate (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at WP:ANI

There is a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard concerning the edits of Hesselp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Series (mathematics) and Talk:Series (mathematics) that members of this project might be willing and able to comment on. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation overkill proposal at WP:Citation overkill talk page

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Normed algebra

Normed algebra has been proposed for deletion. Presumably it should be unprodded, but it's in pretty bad shape and needs help to make it more clearly notable first. Anyone want to have a go? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe merge into "Banach algebra"? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"Normed algebra" usually means "finite dimensional Banach algebra". But in the area these are studied, I believe the standard term is actually "normed algebra", so I feel that's not quite an appropriate merge target. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Why f-dim? For example, take the ring of all smooth functions on some compact manifold (e.g., a circle). Then the ring is normed, say, with the sup norm (assume there is a metric on the manifold). But it's not Banach; how do you call that ring? -- Taku (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, there is such a mathematical structure. However, we have a theory of Banach algebras (with nontrivial theorems, not just definitions and examples); have we such a theory of normed algebras? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course it make sense to allow infinite dimensions, but usually "normed algebra" refers to the finite-dimensional case in my experience. See Hurwitz's theorem (composition algebras), for example. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

According to the lede of our Banach algebra, an infinite-dim case is allowed. Anyway, I do agree with both of you that the focus of the study is probably on the finite-dim case. -- Taku (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I want to point out that a normed field is, as of this writing, a red link. But presumably it should be discussed in the "normed algebra" article; this argues against the merger. -- Taku (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Mathematical universe hypothesis

Edit war here about a writer who may be a crackpot; someone with subject expertise please take a look? —swpb^T 17:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try participating on the article talk page and not just demanding that others do so? --JBL (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Umm...I did exactly what you're supposed to do when you suspect something is wrong but don't know enough about the topic – I asked for help from people who self-identify as knowing about the topic. What is your problem? —swpb^T 13:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you have made significant edits to the article and may be a participant in the edit war. Per WP:BRD, it is best to first discuss issues leading to the edit war on the article's talk page, to attempt to come to consensus. You appear to not have done that and instead have come directly to WP:MATH to appeal for help. That approach is no great sin, but as an editor with nearly 60,000 edits, you know better. --Mark viking (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Right. In addition, your edit summaries have basically no content, so it is extremely difficult for anyone to tell what you think the problem is. --JBL (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Graham's number

There is a discussion on the talk-page concerning whether the current first sentence (including its footnote) is correct, encyclopedic, and appropriately supported by citation. More voices would be welcome. --JBL (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

XOR, (Exclusive or), page needs some help

The lead paragraph needs help, in particular. There's been a "needs verification" template on the page since 2013. Currently the lead paragraph reads as:

Exclusive or or exclusive disjunction is a logical operation that outputs true only when inputs differ (one is true, the other is false). It is symbolized by the prefix operator J^{[citation needed]} and by the infix operators XOR (/ˌɛks ˈɔːr/), EOR, EXOR, ⊻, ⊕, ↮, and ≢. The negation of XOR is logical biconditional, which outputs true only when both inputs are the same.

Personally, I couldn't find a solid example of J being a symbol for Exclusive Or (maybe it's used in a specific programming language?) Any thoughts? - Popcrate (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done I added a source. It's not from programming, it's from the Polish notation for mathematical logic. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Computer code is original research?

Some sample code was added to Shanks' square forms factorization. I put a citation needed tag on it. Now the original author has made changes to it. This makes me think that it is his own code. Is this wp:OR? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Code is generally either OR or copyvio. That's one reason why pseudocode is usually preferable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This code says that it avoids overflowing 64-bit integers. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with David. The Gowers and Wagstaff paper has a pseudocode description of the algorithm on pages 11-12. Probably better to summarize that than provide OR C code. --Mark viking (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

There is also pseudocode in Wagstaff's newer book ("The Joy of Factoring"). Does someone want to do that job? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Equivalent definitions, again

Three years ago the article "Affine space" was attacked by a non-expert. His position: the notion of affine space (like any other) must have just one definition treated literally; not only the structure, but also its implementation (encoding in the set theory) must be fixed once and for all; otherwise mathematics is not rigorous. The attack was repulsed, but, bothered by the vulnerability, after a short discussion here, I built a bastion against possible attacks of this kind: equivalent definitions of mathematical structures. A quote therefrom: A person acquainted with topological spaces knows basic relations between neighborhoods, convergence, continuity, boundary, closure, interior, open sets, closed sets, and does not need to know that some of these notions are "primary", stipulated in the definition of a topological space, while others are "secondary", characterized in terms of "primary" notions.

Now we observe another attack toward "Series (mathematics)" (see "Relevant discussion at WP:ANI" above); User:Hesselp insists on a single definition of a series as a sequence (of terms). For now the article defines a series as (a special case of) an infinite expression. Another equivalent definition in use is, a pair of sequences (terms, and partial sums). Regretfully, this case is not covered by my "bastion", since the set of series is itself not quite an instance of a well-known mathematical structure (though some useful structures on this set are mentioned in our article). And still, it would be useful to write something like A person acquainted with series knows basic relations between terms and partial sums, and does not need to know that some of these notions are "primary", stipulated in the definition of a series, while others are "secondary", characterized in terms of "primary" notions. Implementation need not be unique. When several implementations are in use, should we choose one? or mention them all "with due weight"? or what? Any opinion? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tsirel.   Five remarks.
a.   Mentioning different worded - equivalent - definitions in "Series (mathematics)" :  no objections from my side.   Provided the wording is logically consistent and complete.
b.   To be able to judge to which extend the 'infinite-expression' version satisfies this condition, the notion infinite expression should be clear first: the link to Infinite expression is not sufficient. See Talk:Infinite expression, and the unanswered questions A-E in Talk page 18:49, 10 May 2017.
c.   Moreover, as every expression,  also an infinite expression should refer to some (mathematical or non-mathematical) object.   The 'infinite-expression' version leds to the self-referreing: "A series is an infinite expression.... denoting a series." Isn't it?
d.   On: "User:Hesselp insists on a single definition of a series as a sequence (of terms)."
Not at all. See section Definition in this edit.
e.   The Bourbaki-definition (series = the couple: sequence; its sum sequence) refers to the former (also Cauchy's) meaning of 'series':  a sequence of terms allowing partial sums. -- Hesselp (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(a): I am glad. (b) "an infinite tree labeled with symbols of various types" (quoted from that talk page) — I am able to turn this hint to a definition; I agree that our "Infinite expression" article gives only informal explanation (for non-mathematicians), not a definition; and again, we are not a professional mathematical encyclopedia... (c) sure; see my (b) above; and in general an expression has no value (but in "good" cases it has); (d) I am glad (again; see my (a) above); (e) nice. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

It's tempting to try to define infinite expressions as infinite sequences of symbols (as non-infinite expressions are usually defined as finite sequences of symbols) but that turns out to be problematic, for instance because things that people would recognize as infinite expressions can have more than one end. That's why I hinted at using parse trees instead, in the quote you found. But I don't know of any source that actually formalizes them that way or any other... —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Carl could know more... I only remember "Borel codes" (for Borel sets); but they are not widely known, and worse, they are usually defined just for the case, not as a special case of general "infinite expression". But anyway, as for me, "infinite expression" is terribly expensive (far not economical) implementation; not accessible to most undergraduates, is it? Overkill. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

For series? Definitely. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It is somewhat ironic that, although mathematics is one of the most precise fields, the basic concepts are often not defined identically. For example, the talk page of the article on "function" shows much effort about how to present that concept in a way that is both accurate and accessible to those learning basic algebra and calculus. The same applies to "series": it is a standard, basic concept, which everyone agrees on. But, because it is typically defined in calculus and lower-level books, the definitions that are often given in the books lack something that would be present in a graduate level text. This does not mean, however, that we should try to present "series" in the style of Bourbaki. Instead, we should follow the sources and present the same general understanding that they convey. To some extent, I agree with the proposition above that in articles about *elementary* subjects, it is not necessary to focus too heavily on axiomatics. Of course, more advanced articles will naturally have a more axiomatic focus. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Then, maybe, it is desirable (whenever feasible) to first give an informal explanation, but afterwards, closer to the end of the article, give rigorous definition(s)? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this can be reasonable, but only when there are clear formal definitions in the literature. In many cases, it turns out that advanced texts simply don't bother giving definitions of concepts such as "series", which they assume the reader is familiar with, while introductory texts give only informal definitions. In such cases, I think it is better to avoid trying to invent a formal definition out of thin air (although certainly many people could create one). If numerous sources all find it possible to discuss a concept without a formal definition, we can certainly do so as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Well. But for series, if I am not mistaken, we need not invent it, since Hesselp gave us such sources. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

And surely it would be an overkill, to first define infinite expression in general. A sequence (or two) is much more economical implementation (while not the most intuitive one, which is typical: either intuitive or economical...). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Carl that we lack a formal definition of a series, which covers all aspects of the concept and is widely accepted. In fact, the situation is similar to the case of a sum: There is no definition in Addition, and it is difficult to give one, as "sum" denotes the processus (operation) as well as its result. Another example is Line (geometry), where the usual "Definition" section is replaced by a section Line (geometry)#Definitions versus descriptions, which contains a discussion that is strongly related to this one. In any case, a series is not a sequence nor a pair of sequences nor an expression. It is an object which is built from a sequence. Who think to a Taylor series as a sequence? D.Lazard (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes... Likewise, who thinks on a real number as a cut in rationals?.. "Object built from a sequence", yes. Lot of objects are (for instance, words, queues, stacks, and even files). In programming this is a matter of "abstract data type"; a pity that we have no such notion in mathematics. We have "structure (up to isomorphism)", but this does not cover all needs. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

So... should we add a section "Definitions versus descriptions" into "series" (and a number of other articles, such as "Formal power series")? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I stand puzzled. Some notions are primitive (undefined), some are defined, and some appear to be... elementary? undergraduate? Well, I do not argue about names. But let us imagine that we are preparing a proof of a theorem for verification on a proof assistant. In the middle we face series. What now? Say "this theorem is not formalizable in ZFC"? Surely not. Surely we continue. What does it mean? A vague term whose meaning is determined implicitly by the context, case-by-case? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

There are two answers. Firstly, the concept of series is too wide for being the subject of a general theorem: what is common between a numerical series and a formal power series except that both are infinite sums? By the way, in the lead of the article, I have implicitly defined an infinite sum as a process (algorithm), but I have, as usual, left ambiguous whether a sum is a process or its result. My second answer (which is not incompatible with the first one) is that one has to proceed similarly as in synthetic geometry for defining a line: a series is a pair consisting of a representation (an algorithm for computing the sequence of its coefficients), and the operations that are defined on series (convergence or not, addition, ...). This is what is called a category in Axiom (computer algebra system). Also, the package "mgfun" of Maple (software) uses this way of defining/representing series for making algorithmic many operations on functions, such as computation of limits, indefinite integrals, ... (see the dynamic dictionary of mathematical functions, which is not a proof assistant, but the output of an automatic prover). D.Lazard (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

(1) I did not mean a theorem about series, but a theorem whose proof uses some series ("in the middle" of the proof).

(2) Now you basically treat series as an abstract data type! Nice, but this is outside mathematics (unless you include all the computer sciences into math). And you cannot use this meaning of series in a theorem (neither in formulation nor in proof), otherwise you really do something outside ZFC (no matter, whether you present a theorem to a human or computer). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to D. Lazard. But I want to mention a few things: it seems, in some instances, series refers simply to a formal series; e.g., "series" as in Hilbert-Poincare series. This suggests to me, a series is a more of a heuristic concept than an explicitly defined concept. For example, in algebraic geometry, one talks about a situation in which a geometric figure "degenerates" to another figure (this example is meant to suggest "elementary" is irrelevant). One can formalize this but the point is that this is something heuristic or intuitive as a concept. "Series" seems like a similar case.

I also point out you don't need infinite expression to define a (formal) series. Completing a polynomial ring (in one variable) gives the ring, an element of which is a formal power series. Finally, the use of infinite expressions in mathematics can be very problematic since for example one wonders how to make sense of power series in (uncountably) infinitely many variables. -- Taku (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is another instance when an infinite expressions can be problematic. If I remember correctly, in functional analysis, you can consider a sort of series or summation over a filter. The idea is that this allows, for example, one to extend the theory of separable Hilbert spaces to general Hilbert spaces; e.g., one can have an expansion in terms of an uncountable orthonormal basis instead of a countable orthobornal basis. (The simpler and standard approach is to abandon the idea of expansions.) Yet another example: formal Laurent series do not form a ring, since the definition of multiplication is unclear (the usual way out is to consider only the Laurent series with finitely many negative terms.) The point is that, to be rigorous, you need some mathematical apparatus like ring theory or set theory (filter) to handle cases like these instead of infinite expressions. -- Taku (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Representation theory of the Lorentz group -- a good article nomination

Representation theory of the Lorentz group is currently a good article nominee, nominated by YohanN7. I have started reviewing the article, but there is a fundamental disagreement here: the article is, in my opinion, much too long and covers topic in a level of detail that should better be deferred to related articles. YohanN7, of course, is of a different opinion, stated here.

Can someone please have a look and weigh in at the nomination talk page? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Envelope model (again)

The opinions of learned mathematicians would be helpful at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Envelope model, a discussion that appears to be dominated by those with the attitude that advanced topics have no place in Wikipedia, and deserve to be TNT'd. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2017/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Mathematics, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Envelope model

I've made a copy of this deleted article at User:Michael_Hardy/Envelope_model. Users should feel free to edit it to bring it into a form that would justify restoring it. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Liouville space

Is the article titled Liouville space worth keeping? It says it's the Cartesian product of two Hilbert spaces. Isn't that somewhat trivially a Hilbert space in its own right? The article doesn't indicate why such a concept is useful. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably, a misunderstanding. The (single) source says roughly that Liouville space consists of operators on a given Hilbert space (and operators on the Liouville space are the superoperators on the Hilbert space). If at all Cartesian product is relevant, it is the product of a basis to itself. Or alternatively, a tensor product of the Hilbert space to itself. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Ask Google for superoperator Liouville space. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits to number articles

Power~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making edits to number articles, removing apparently significant mathematics facts, usually without an edit summary. For example, 90, 87, 86, 85, 82, and so forth all the way down to 1. Similarly highly questionable edits (with the same misleading boilerplate edit summary) were made to all of the small integers through about 20, e.g., 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, etc.

I believe that changes affecting many articles should be discussed, and consensus obtained before implementing them. I am not sure what criteria the editor is using to exclude properties as sufficiently interesting, but it seems to be entirely subjective and not based on any guidelines. Indeed, Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) actually does demand at least three mathematical properties of numbers. Mersenne primes, aliquot sequences, repdigits, palindromic numbers, Harshad numbers, Erdős–Woods numbers, and a host of other properties, all seem like the kinds of properties that articles about specific numbers should discuss, but I note that these have apparently now been expunged from our number articles. I do not particularly trust this user's editorial judgement on what numerical properties are due weight for inclusion. I am inclined to revert all of these edits, pending discussion and consensus, but that should await community support. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

These articles certainly need a "full copy-edit and revision". I'd be inclined to remove the "5 is the number of songs by GarageBand" cruft and leave the mathematics in place, but that begs the question of what the articles are for. At the moment they're a hybrid of properties of the integer, dab page and trivia and should possibly be split onto multiple pages. Certes (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not about the pop culture stuff (which, curiously, was entirely left alone in this massive culling of content), but the actual encyclopedic mathematical facts about the number, many of which are actually sort of important (e.g., Mersenne prime, Fibonacci number, etc). Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

For the numbers 1-10, the articles are clogged and I may have accidentally deleted a few facts that could be kept (Mersenne primes). For facts such as "aliquot sequences" (or Harshad numbers in bases other than 10) I stand by the fact that they are *NEVER* encyclopedic in this way. Power~enwiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

5 isn't even a Mersenne prime. "The first four Mersenne primes (sequence A000668 in the OEIS) are 3, 7, 31, and 127." What are you talking about? Power~enwiki (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It's the third Mersenne prime exponent. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Which is currently in the 5 article. I request you retract some of your inflammatory remarks. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I have removed that assertion. You also apparently in the same edit deleted the fact that 5 is a good prime. Was this explained in your edit summary or on the talk page? You removed the fact that $S_{5}$ is the smallest nonsolvable symmetric group, and that there are five exceptional semisimple Lie groups. Was this explained in your edit summary or on the talk page? If not, please restore these facts or supply a justification for their removal.

From 4, you removed that it is the smallest Smith number. I believe that this was not addressed in your edit summary, which was "Full copy-edit and revision," along with other facts. Please restore this and other facts that you probably mistakenly removed in the course of your "copy edit". Lots of content was also apparently (mistakenly?) removed from 3. (For example, that 3 is a Heegner number, which is actually an important number-theoretic property.) The edit summary was again "Full copy-edit and revision", which makes me think that you did not intend to remove any facts from the page, but you did. Likewise, please make sure that you did not remove any facts during your copy editing of 2,6,7,8,9,10, and so forth, without explaining the reasons, either in an edit summary or on the discussion page. (E.g., that 7 is a Heegner number, or that it is the lowest known dimension of an exotic sphere.)

Generally for large-scale changes like these, it is better to get consensus before implementing them. It may still be better to revert so that the mistakenly removed information remains there, but if you want to go through the sequence of edits and restore the facts that you mistakenly deleted one at a time, that would probably be best.

I personally think that all edits should be reverted, and if an individual fact merits removal, you should at the very least indicate in an edit summary what you are removing and why. But I will await community input before implementing this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, these edits by Power~enwiki are too much bold. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree. At first they looked ok, but as I looked at more and more they seemed to get fairly extreme. I think it would be best to revert and discuss. My preference would be to remove most of the base-dependent properties Power~enwiki removed (like "palindromic and a repdigit in bases 14" at 90) but to leave most of the rest intact. Of course I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus determines. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

These are almost all egregiously trivial; I'm not sure how being a good prime or a Smith number is comparable to being a Fibonacci number or a square number. If there's one you believe otherwise, I encourage you to re-add it, as long as you don't re-add nonsense like "a repdigit in base 14". Power~enwiki (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Erdős numbers

User:Solomon7968 has been removing all mention of Erdős numbers from many articles about mathematicians. Most people consider this information to be significant. He mentions that one other editor agrees with him. This overlooks the fact that tens of editors (perhaps hundreds) do not agree with him––namely all the people who went to the trouble of mentioning the Erdős number in the first place. I urge Solomon7968 to slow down, at least until there is more discussion of this sweeping change.––Toploftical (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I spot-checked 10 of his edits today, and the only one I disagree with at all was on Richard Schelp (which was already reverted). Having an Erdos number of greater than 1 is definitely not worth mentioning in the lede of a mathematician's biography. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted six of them last night, but left in place a larger number of these edits. I think this information can and should be mentioned, but only on cases where there is something more significant to say about the connection rather than the mere fact of having an Erdős number. E.g. one of the ones I reverted was for Arthur Rubin, whose by-far-most-cited publication was one with Erdős. In my view, Solomon7968's apparent attitude that this must never be mentioned is far too strict. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the standard David Eppstein has been applying (Erdos numbers should be included when they are defensibly significant, as for long-term collaborators) is a correct one. Most mathematicians should not have their Erdos numbers in their biographies. --JBL (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That sounds about right. How about this compromise? An Erdős number of 1 is worth mentioning. 2 or greater is not significant.--Toploftical (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think all Erdős numbers of 1 are worth mentioning. And on the other hand, significantly higher Erdős numbers can be worth mentioning, when they are particularly surprising or have been repeatedly noted by sources, as for instance with Danica McKellar's Erdős number of 4. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with Joel and David, this looks like a reasonable approach. I am not in favor of a strict numerical cut-off as there are going to be special circumstances. For instance, a young researcher having an Erdős number of 2, since a 1 is now impossible, is probably playing a significant role in furthering the type of mathematics that Erdős worked on, so, depending on the co-authors this could be notable and will become moreso as time goes on. On the other hand, I do not consider my own 3 as particularly notable and would not include it in my own biography. I also reverted some of these edits and note that the reasons given in Solomon7968's edit summaries really did not apply, the titles just sounded like they might.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Bill, I would like to know your rationale behind your reversion of my edit on Terence Tao. The article just mentions that his E number is 2. How exactly does that distinguishes him from 11,009 other individuals? This basically amounts to insulting someone whom NY Times calls "one of the greatest mathematicians in the world", not to mention that he is also a member of the elite Fields club. Solomon7968 22:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

As I hope I implied above, I am advocating a case by case determination. My reasoning in Tao's case is a good example. Terence is a well-known and highly respected mathematician whose interests significantly overlap those of Erdős. What is notable about his Erdős number is that it is not 1, as many might think it would be. This has to do with age differences and circumstances, and in no way reflects on Tao's abilities. To state that mentioning this fact is an insult to Tao implies that you think that an Erdős number is some kind of rating system–a POV that is totally without merit. I, like many other mathematicians, have talked with Paul about problems that I had been working on. He briefly told me that these problems were "too hard" and nothing further developed. Had I been working on easier problems, perhaps I would have had a lower Erdős number. This says nothing about my abilities. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think the relevant point about Tao is not "His Erdős number is two" but "Despite the famous photo of Tao as a child with Erdős, he never ended up publishing any research with Erdős before Erdős's death, so his Erdős number is only two." But without a source the connection between the photo and the unexpectedly-high Erdős number comes across as WP:SYNTH. Is there a source that states it in these terms? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Women in Mathematics

So I have come across this List of women in mathematics, and will be going through it to improve the articles. While this is probably more biography related, I thought I would post about it here because of its relevance to mathematics. I was wondering if anybody has some research tips/advice, wants to help, or has any general thoughts. - Popcrate (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Statistician, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Good article nomination

Fields are a new good article nomination. The article is a level 4 vital article. I am looking forward to your review (follow the instructions at the top of the talk page of the article to start a review); thank you. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I found a number of extreme typesetting crudities in the article that looked like something by primitive cavemen; for example

x−p/q

instead of

x − p/q

or

$A\otimes \dots Z\,$

instead of

$A\otimes \cdots \otimes Z\,$

(with \cdots and with \otimes appearing both before and after the dots).

I also found something like "If any element has a multiplicative inverse...", which in normal English usage could be construed as meaning "If there is any element that has a multiplicative inverse". But that is not what was meant; rather it means "If it is the case that any element, no matter which one, has a muliplicative inverse", but that is rather verbose. I just changed "any" to "every", which is unambiguous. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

template for the theorems

I came across this template {{Math_theorem|name|<math> </math>}} in Brahmagupta–Fibonacci identity (old version). I personally dislike the use there and do not find its output really helpful in this case. I also haven't come across it anywhere else yet. So I'm wondering what other math editors think of it and whether there is some consensus regarding its use or even awareness of its existence.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it's not in terribly wide use: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Math_theorem --JBL (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the use on B-F identity looks horrible. --JBL (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

In general I would say that I am not fond of it. I was uncomfortable with it when it first appeared on B-F, but felt that I had been hassling the editor who put it there a little too much, so I let it slide. Taking a broader view, I would now say that it may be okay to use if the article is about a theorem (with a name), but it should only be used once on such pages and only for the subject of the article.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Substantively, the article was identical 5 years ago; to be honest, I think that the older version looked better! (A number of minor edits to the body have been on net a small positive, but the lead was crisper and not burdened with the ugly template.) --JBL (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Relatedly, the use of equation numbers adds extra width to the formula for very little added informational value. The effect of this is that, on a mobile device, the equation's font size is shrunken proportionally, making it impossible to read. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the formatting from this article. (But not the equation numbers.) --JBL (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Jun 2017

MathJax?

This has probably come up before: why don't we have MathJax on Wikipedia? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

We used to, but the developers ripped it out, partly because their implementation was big and crufty for reasons I don't understand (when I use it in my own web pages it is very very simple) and partly because they want to promote failed-web-standard MathML instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

In places like stackexchange and other web pages where MathJax is used, it seems to do work very well at doing things that are done badly in Wikipedia articles. For example, in expressions like $e^{x^{2}+2}\,$ the e should be at the same elevation as the letters in the surrounding sentence and the superscript should be above that, but that's not what happens here. In in things like $A+B+C\,$ the letters A, B, C appear more than twice as large as the corresponding letters in this sentence.

So MathJax would be a good thing if the developers can get it working. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly! For example, I was reading cubic function recently. A well-done article, but the (necessary) usage of different markups makes it just painful to read.

Are there any drawbacks (other than implementation-related details) of MathJax on Wikipedia? If not, I suggest we should just lobby more strongly? After all, as Michael points out, the latex markup looks ugly and disconnected to the text. The {{math|...}} template looks a bit better, but is painful to type. Moreover, like the usual ''...'' markup, it only works for basic formulas. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

{{math}} also doesn't work well on mobile. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Michael Hardy: "appear more than twice as large as the corresponding letters in this sentence." That's weird btw.. The dimensions and positioning with these SVG images is based on the height of your surrounding font (using ex units, similarly to em units). The difference should not be that big (They are the same units as the SVG mode of mathjax uses). Unless the font your browser is using has a broken font specification or broken SVG renderer or something... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@TheDJ: I've seen this on a considerable variety of computers, in a number of different public libraries, in a number of different university libraries on different campuses, in faculty offices on university campuses, on the Lenovo Thinkpad on which I'm typing this now, on a desktop computer in my home, and others. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Another issue with the {{math|...}} template is that it may not work on other language wikipedias, which is really a bit of a pain if you work across several wikipedias. Actually I rather much have universal syntax for formulas (the <math> tag + Latex) throughout all Wikipedias and within all articles than a perfectly optimized display that comes at the cost of additional syntax and a lack of interoperability.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, another drawback of {{math|...}}. David Eppstein, you participated in this discussion, where some developers seem to maintain that introducing MathJax would have some drawbacks. Can you or anyone else explain these? I am not very much into these different paradigms of math rendering. What are the "political" reasons for not adopting MathJax? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

There used to be a version maintained by Nageh, here, but he has retired and no longer supports it. There is much less need for it now, with the MathML support in particular doing the same job much more efficiently (MathJax had painfully long page loading times). I don’t recall it fixing alignment problems either which probably have more to do with the style sheets and markup WP uses for text paragraphs. StackExchange and other technical web sites can probably afford to have a more formula-centric design.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your comment "there is much less need for it now". We keep having the same crappy-looking (in relation to the surrounding text) <math>...</math> formulas for years. Can you clarify how MathML helps in this regard?

My personal point of view is this: judging from its wide-spread adoption on other sites, from its overall superior aesthetic performance, and judging from its apparent simplicity of implementation, I don't see why WP does not use MathJax as a default.

Here is a table that aims to help objectivize the discussion. Please feel free to correct any judgement I have made so far, also feel free to refine or add to the criteria that came to my mind. Just edit right in the table if there is no likely controversy. Likewise, if there are other options that I am not aware of, just add a column. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

	"Naive markup"	{{math|...}} markup	<math>...</math>	MathJax
Example	a2 is the square of a.	a2 is the square of a.	$a^{2}$ is the square of $a$.	[please add screenshot]
brief explanation of how the technique works	[please add]	[please add]	[please add]	[please add]
Appearance of font (size, position) in relation to surrounding text	very good	very good	poor	OK (judging from other sites
can be typed easily for simple formulas such as a^2	18 bytes: a2	27 bytes: a2	17 bytes: $a^{2}$	17 bytes: $a^{2}$
can be typed easily for medium formulas such as the fundamental theorem of calculus	87 bytes: ∫ba f(x) = F(b) − F(a)	98 bytes: ∫ba f(x) = F(b) − F(a)	45 bytes: $\int _{a}^{b}f(x)\,dx=F(b)-F(a)$	45 bytes
can be typed easily for advanced formulas	no	no	yes	yes
can be served quickly (download times etc.)	yes	yes	[please add]	[please add]
can be customized relative to WP skins	yes	[please add]	[please add]	[please add]

Two reasons MathJax not being the default that at least were in effect a year ago:

• WP MathJax is (was?) just incredibly slow.
• WP MathJax is (was?) full of bugs.

This is not saying we shouldn't move to MathJax in the future. But changing from something bad to something equally bad is just pointless. YohanN7 (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The table above omits the "dx" in a couple of places but includes it in another whose number of bytes is contrasted with the numbers of bytes in the examples that omit it. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

In some sense, we do have mathjax, just on the server side rather than the client side. When the engine was overhauled the backend was changed to use a latex to mathml/svg rendered which written with input from the MathJax people. I believe the whole reason MathJax has an svg mode might have a lot to do with Wikipedias needs.

The technical problems for client side mathjax for wikipedia is the range of devices being targeted. It needs to work well on old hardware in developing countries and increasingly phones and tablets. Asking such devices to do a lot of javascript rendering is not ideal.

It is possible to have client side mathjax. I think including User:Salix alba/MathJax.js in your vector.js will do it.

mw.loader.load( '/w/index.php?title=User:Salix_alba/MathJax.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );

ght

You also need to set the rendering mode in your preferences to "LaTeX source (for text browsers)". I've not tested it lately, I think it works with the latest MathJax. It would not be possible to give such a script a wide rollout as it would put too great a load on the CDN server.

The is also a chrome extension Wikipedia with MathJax which esentially acheives the same as the above script.

Personally I'm relatively pleased with the current scheme. Rendering problems are much reduced from the old PNG days. I'm sure there was a bug related to baselines, possibly T34694, its still not quite right. --Salix alba (talk): 17:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

re I am not sure I understand your comment "there is much less need for it now" , before MathJax the only rendering was PNG graphics, which were and still are crude, and were more expensive to load as every one has to be fetched individually. Now though we have Math ML/SVG, which produces much higher quality output, more suited for high resolution screens and printing. Math ML also uses less bandwidth, though this is less of a concern as bandwidth costs have come down exponentially. So there are no big quality benefits to be had from MathJax now: the quality of what we have is at least as good.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually I disagree somewhat here, in practice in certain scenarios the Math ML/SVG is much slower than the old png solution. That is when a client calls a page for first Math ML/SVG is still horribly slow, in fact if a page is formula heavy it doesn't render completely if you don't hit reload. Now for the subsequent calls to the same page the rendering is fast, until the cache gets purged presumably. If you return to the same page after a longer time the first rendering is horribly slow/incomplete again.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I’ve not noticed that, or tried comparing it to PNG rendering. Maybe I’m just used to pages taking a long time to regenerate, usually due to scripts and/or length. The problem with MathJax though was that it was slow every time the page loaded, because of the way it worked, rendering the mathematics after the rest of the page was loaded, using Javascript. Pages could take several seconds to render the mathematics every time the page was viewed. This was dependent on the viewer’s browser, so might be faster now, at least on desktop – though more and more viewing is done on mobile where performance is much slower.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm not arguing for MathJax. In fact personally I don't care really much for the underlying technology (as long as it does the job done) and I'm not really familiar with their details anyhow. I just wanted to point out that from user's perspective as editor/reader the current Math ML/SVG solution still has significant issues in practice as far as it's speed is concerned.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth doing a bug report for the speed issue. With images, there are ways of packaging up all the images in a single download. There might well be a way to speed up the download of svg's using modern html features.--Salix alba (talk): 21:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne: here we go again with the advocacy of MathML (a failure for web display, as it is only supported by a tiny minority of browsers) over anything that actually works in the real world. Your argument that it uses less bandwidth is both pointless (who cares how much bandwidth it uses when it doesn't work) and false (once the one-time cost for loading the libraries and fonts has been paid, MathJax is more concise). SVG, your preferred fallback to MathML, is better than the old bitmaps, but still has big issues with font sizing, baseline alignment, fuzzier rendering (antialiasing vs subpixel-resolution text display in browsers), etc. It is simply false that what we have now renders as well as MathJax. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a bit fuzzy now, but as I recall MathJax had all those problems, or at least many similar ones. Some of them would be as it was different from PNG rendering, and as PNG rendering was the standard and what most editors had used when assembling articles, so they looked bad in MathJax, but it had its own bugs and problems. I tried enabling it a couple of times but removed it as worse than PNG rendering. I have no such problems with the MathML/SVG option and have had that on by default for as long as I can remember.

On the particular issue of baseline alignment, I imagine this is deliberate, for consistency with the PNG renderer. If formulae are too complex to inline well then probably no automatic solution can work, and the content might be better rewritten so the formulae are in their own paragraph(s). If it really needs fixing it should be fixed for all forms of math rendering, for consistency.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I can only hope this font-sizing and alignment is not deliberately wrong. More importantly, MathJax does manage to align & size the formulas just fine in relation to surrounding text. (Look at any example, including the one linked in the above table.) This is one of the reasons I personally would prefer MathJax. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The one link is to a secure, as in password protected site. But we cannot go by what other sites are like. Other sites, especially mathematically focussed ones, might make different decisions about how to combine text and formulae, with different configurations for their equivalent of the math extension and different CSS and javascript to specify how it appears in the page. If you think it is wrong here then you could submit a bug report, but I cannot believe this has not been looked at before; the way it works now must be by design.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Just as a point of order.. Even though the name of the option includes MathML, unlike earlier envisioned, it does not actually use MathML anywhere to render math. It only uses SVG (generated serverside by MathJax) or PNG. Additionally, there is a non-visible MathML snippet for machine readability and accessibility purposes. The SVG is sized relatively to the surrounding font. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

TheDJ: Is it correct that simply changing (or optionally changing) the way MathJax formats the output (i.e., replacing svg output by html+javascript output) on the backend of WP would in effect amount to introducing MathJax? (I.e., how much work is it for WP developers to change to (or offer an option to change to) the "usual" MathJax output seen on many other websites?) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

No, MathJax as you all talk about it, requires client side javascript (also for the HTML/CSS mode). It wouldn't be as easy as just generating another format. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@YohanN7: you mentioned that MathJax is full of bugs. Can you specifically name or explain some of these? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I said WP MathJax was full of bugs some time ago, because you asked for reasons it isn't presently default. I don't know of the current status. One example I remember was nesting commands like \overline. I'd also consider extremely slow performance being a bug. Face it, on a machine able to numerically solving for ten simultaneously colliding black holes in a split second (maybe exaggerating a bit here, just making a point), rendering a little screen output should take no measurable time at all. CPU and network speed is nowadays measured, not by astronomical numbers, but by economical numbers. These are big numbers indeed Again, I don't know the present status, but from what I read here, performance issues are still there. If they are, they are of more serious nature than anything else like isolated bugs referring to a specific feature, since they indicate that the implementation may be rotten throughout, and beyond repair. Handing a large chunk of code to someone, saying "make this fast" isn't an easy assignment. I am not taking sides here, since I don't know the current status of WP MathJax. YohanN7 (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I also remember reporting errors (to presumably the correct place), the \overline bug and another one I don't recall the details of. But nothing happened in a long time, and that is also problematic. YohanN7 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

1. The biggest problem is that it causes reflows (size changes of content) and repaints (re-rendering of the page) in the entire page. This is VERY slow, killing on performance. If you have intensive pages, like on Wikipedia, reflows are the worst thing you can have. In pages the size of Barack Obama, one mathjax formula 'enhancement' can be disruptive.
2. The second problem is the huge payload sizes of mathjax, which are problematic for mobile and low speed connections. As well as just being complex and taking a lot of CPU to execute the MathJax rendering (not everyone has high performance computers).
3. Additionally, is the problem that we already run a LOT of scripts on Wikipedia. And these all have to compete with eachother about when then can go and start to do their job. Much of that is invisible (other than superscripts). but again, mathjax causes reflows, so this would lead to content jumping around at unpredictable times after the page has loaded.

That's 3 problems, each and everyone of them a reason for developers to not like MathJax. And it's also not something that can easily be fixed, because it's what 'makes it work' in that mode. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should care what the developers like or don't like. What we deploy should be what is best for our readers and editors, not our developers. Otherwise we'd be stuck writing plain unformatted ascii text. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

All of those though affect users. In fact my 'slow loading' comment above is much better described in TheDJ’s first point. It was not that page was slow to load. It loaded, then MathJax spent several seconds doing its thing, reflowing the page again and again as it did, causing it to redraw and so making it impossible to read. This is unlike e.g. any delay as images are loaded because the pages knows how much space they will occupy, so can generate the page with spaces for images to load into. And this was on a modern desktop PC. It would be an order of magnitude worse on many mobile devices.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Screenshots of above table comparing the two rendering modes the default SVG and client-side svg using my javascript

Server side (SVG) rendering

Client side MathJax rendering

The biggest difference is the fuzzyness of the text in the SVG mode. Neither actually get the baseline quite right. The SVG does not seem to have used the inline formatting for the integral. Which can be forced with <math display="inline"> to give ${\textstyle \int _{a}^{b}f(x)\,dx=F(b)-F(a)}$.--Salix alba (talk): 20:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill RfC

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

\iddots

Our system for mathematical notation of course has \ddots:

${\begin{pmatrix}a_{11}&\cdots &a_{1n}\\\vdots &\ddots &\vdots \\a_{m1}&\cdots &a_{mn}\end{pmatrix}}$

Does it have have any kind of rising diagonal dots? This is plainly needed in some fragments of Pascal's triangle:

${\begin{array}{cccccccccc}&&&&1\\&&&1&&1\\&&1&&2&&1\\&1&&3&&3&&1\\\vdots &&&&&&&&\ddots \end{array}}$

Clearly where the two sets of \vdots appear below and where the \vdots appear above, one should have rising diagonal dots.

${\begin{array}{cccccccccccccc}&&&&\vdots \\&&&1&&8&&28&&56&&70&&\cdots \\&&1&&9&&36&&84&&126&&\cdots \\&1&&10&&45&&120&&210&&\cdots \\\vdots \end{array}}$

Michael Hardy (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

And while we're at it, how would I draw a hexagon around the six entries that surround one entry? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Not perfect, but unicode has 22F0 utdot, rising dots: ⋰ --Mark viking (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Collatz conjecture or 3x + 1 problem

The article formerly titled Collatz conjecture was recently moved to the new title 3x + 1 problem, seemingly without any discussion. I am a little skeptical of this move; what do others think? --JBL (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem has a lot of valid names, so it's hard to pick just one. 3x+1 at least has the advantage of being descriptive. But I don't feel very strongly either way. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

A recent bibliography of papers about the conjecture The 3x + 1 Problem: An Annotated Bibliography, II (2000-2009) seems to show both names being used fairly often. As long as redirects for the alternative names, like the Collatz problem, are in place, the 3x + 1 problem seems a reasonable title. --Mark viking (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I personally would prefer "3n + 1 problem" to "3x + 1 problem"; x is usually used for real-valued variables, and this is a question of arithmetic. There also seem to be several instances of "3n + 1" or "3N + 1" in that bibliography. I think I like "Collatz" better than "3x + 1"; the x just kind of bugs me, even though obviously you can call a variable whatever you want.

In any case, procedurally, the move should probably be reverted pending discussion, if anyone cares enough to discuss it. I'm not fond of the x title but I probably don't care enough to make a big stink about it. --Trovatore (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I prefer "Collatz conjecture" as this is the more common term for the conjecture, as evidenced by Google scholar, which shows about twice as many hits for this as for the combined total of "3x+1 conjecture" and "3n+1 conjecture". I agree with Trovatore that the "x" is a bit jarring, but this does seem to be standard in the literature and so for this reason would be preferable to using "n". Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree 3x+1 seems to be the worst of all three principally valid options. Another things is, that unilaterally moving articles from one valid name to another is something that should be avoided. As such moves can have side effects (for instance potentially breaking internal and external links and/or the handling of large number of redirects), they should only be done after careful consideration and checking for feedback/consent first.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Let me ping Ylevental who did the move, in case he or she wants to weigh in. For what it's worth, I agree with the comments that "3n + 1" or "3x + 1" is more descriptive, that "Collatz conjecture" strikes me as the thing I've heard the most (but maybe this is just the Wikipedia effect?), and that "x" is jarring relative to "n". If it stays at "3x + 1" or "3n + 1", I hope that someone can do the thing that has been done to e (mathematical constant) so that the title appears correctly formatted, with the variable in italics. --JBL (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the page back to Collatz conjecture. Using "3x + 1" is IMO wrong. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly a name that some people use for the conjecture; what could it mean to say that it's "wrong"? --JBL (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If a name is used in authoritative/reputable external it is usually considered "right" from the WP (policy) perspective. So in that sense all 3 names are valid or "right". However that does not mean that all 3 are equally good choices as there are other things to consider, such as which name is more common or which name fits the problem better and more.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Ylevental here. User:Sławomir Biały made a good point when he mentioned Google scholar. But it seems that at least for me, the "3x + 1 problem" term has the most highly cited papers, by a wide margin. The "3n + 1 problem" term is hardly used, and Collatz conjecture does have more papers, but they are not as highly cited. Additionally, Jeffrey Lagarias, one of the top experts on the problem, calls it the 3x + 1 problem and wrote an entire book on it called The Ultimate Challenge: The 3x+1 Problem There is no corresponding book with the name Collatz in the title. Ylevental (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

There is however The Dynamical System Generated by the 3n+1 Function (Springer 2006). Also doing a Google books search for "3x+1" problem collatz produces only 9 hits whereas "3n+1" problem collatz produces 84. "collatz conjecture" on its own yields 824 hits. Btw. I didn't consider "3n+1" problem or "3x+1" problem as those seem to produce an extremely large number of false hits.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That's true, but the more well-known books use 3x + 1 in the title. I see your point, however. I now am fine with either 3x + 1 problem or Collatz conjecture as the title. Ylevental (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree, but "more well known" seems to be bit in the eye of the beholder. As I said before imho all 3 names are valid as such and you probably can make a case for each of them being "the best" option. I don't have strong preference towards any, but I really dislike the moving from one valid name to another without checking for consent first.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move: Quasi-category → ∞-category

I have made a request for the move Quasi-category → ∞-category at Talk:Quasi-category. Participation to the discussion is very welcome. -- Taku (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Master theorem

Ninjagecko and I have been disagreeing over whether Ninjagecko's recent edits to master theorem actually constitute improvements. Additional opinions would be helpful. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Master theorem#Proposed changes June 11th, not here. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

List of solution strategies for differential equations

List of solution strategies for differential equations has been proposed for deletion, in case anyone cares to try to save it. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the rationale for deletion (WP:NOTMANUAL). But I don't feel strongly enough about the article to contest the prod. I think any standard undergraduate textbook on differential equations could easily serve as a general reference for a list article like this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-mainstream terminology in several algebra-related articles

Could someone review/revert Pbierre's edits? They consist in self-promotion and inserting non-standard terminology and notation. Said editor has enganged in edit warring in the past (see his talk-page) and apparently edited as an IP editor. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The editorial work of this editor during this year consists in 8 (eight) edits, 2 of which are outside the scope of mathematics (EOE). The importance of these articles, as well as of these contributions is marginal to my scales. He reverted one single edit twice before retreating. I do not deny him citing his book, the quality (obviously on elementary level) of which I cannot judge. Summoning to review/revert this editor's edits is -to me- nuking possibly biting midges. A witch hunt? Purgy (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

An editor citing themselves is definitely not a problem as long as they cite work published via reputable outlets. Said editor keeps citing Pierre Bierre, Flexing the Power of Algorithmic Geometry; this a self-published work (published by Spatial Thoughtware; absolutely no further details about this publisher are known) and the single published work by a non-professional mathematician (a self-professed "smart product inventor"). These edits are in violation of WP:RS and WP:SYNTH. I just reverted his last four mathematics-related edits (1, 2, 3, 4). --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

counter broken - "31444"

The counter on the project page has been stuck at 31444 for a long time. Can someone explain how the counter works and suggest how we might get it started working again? Arided (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Euler–Boole summation

Euler–Boole summation could use work if it's worth keeping.

Summation method redirects to Divergent series. But Euler–Boole summation says that that is a "summation method", but it seems to end up being about a series with only finitely many terms. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lueroth constant

Back in May, the community decided that our page on the "Alladi–Grinstead constant" ought to go. In the discussion there, I noted that if the decision was to delete, then Lueroth constant should go as well. I've now PRODed it accordingly. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-technical summary of Wiles' proof of FLT. Review requested.

The page has long lacked a summary that someone lacking group theory and beyond can grasp. Based on several descriptions of the proof, I've summarized it in a manner that would probably scandalize a pedant :) but should be roughly right and quite helpful to very many readers. As it's a huge proof, this is about the level of detail needed to make the basic approach accessible to those lacking advanced mathematics and to educate on it.

Due to its technical nature, I'd really appreciate eyeballs and review to check the technical accuracy, and see if there's areas it can be improved while remaining widely accessible.

Thank you.

Link: Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem#Non-technical summary of Wiles'_proof.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd quibble with the use of the word "Non-technical" in the section heading; a curious reader who just dropped in after watching an old NOVA special on YouTube or the like would still find it pretty heavy going. I think calling the section just "Summary of Wiles' proof" (or "Outline of Wiles' proof", etc.) would be fine. XOR'easter (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Group orders of ${\mathbb {Z}}^{n}$

The section title above, Group orders of $\mathbb {Z} ^{n}$, appears in the article titled Lexicographic order. My experience has been that TeX in section headings fails to appear in the article's table of contents. But this on appeared. Is this a recent software improvement? Does it depend on how the user's preferences are set, or on which browser is used? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

. . . and now I see a part of the answer: This appears in the table of contents when I'm logged out, but not when I'm logged in. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

. . . also links to such a section do not work properly (for example, the link to this thread in my watchlist). In fact, this behaviour is very similar to what is described in MOS:HEAD for misplaced invisible comments. IMO, MOS:HEAD must be expanded for warning about this. D.Lazard (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Jul 2017

Ω-validity

There is a redirect, Ω-validity, that is causing a bit of trouble. Procedurally, maybe this should be raised at WP:RFD, but I don't think that's the best venue for a technical discussion.

Here's the background as I can reconstruct it:

• A long time ago, someone put in the validity article a discussion of a concept called "ω-validity". It looked like pretty much nonsense to me.
  • It claimed that a sentence was said to be n-valid if it was true in every interpretation having a universe with exactly n elements. That part is plausible enough, though I've never encountered it. Could be in the literature somewhere, or could be someone's OR.
  • Then it went on to say that a sentence was ω-valid if it's true in every interpretation, and has an interpretation with an infinite universe. That part seems to be nonsense. If it's true in every interpretation, then as there always is an interpretation with an infinite universe, the second part is trivial.
• Then at some point the ω got upcased to Ω. That led to confusion with Ω-logic, and the creation of this redirect and subsequent retargeting, involving User:CBM and User:Omnipedista. Oops — that should be User:Omnipaedista.
• There does in fact exist a concept of Ω-validity that is related to Ω-logic, although the Ω-logic article does not discuss it. See for example http://www2.units.it/episteme/L&PS_Vol3No1/bellotti_L&PS_Vol3No1.pdf. I don't know whether this is worth discussing in the Ω-logic article, which is a very brief view from 30,000 feet and has almost no technical details (if you think it does, that just proves you haven't tried to learn about Ω-logic :-) ). I suppose the article could be expanded, and it might be worth treating in that case, but unfortunately Woodin's project that led to the identification of Ω-logic in the first place seems to have failed. Given that, together with the enormous technical difficulty of the subject, I have some doubts that anyone will ever really want to do it.

So, what to do with Ω-validity and Ω-valid (another redirect pointing to the same article)? Keep in mind that titles are not case-sensitive in the first letter, so ω-validity and ω-valid point to the same place as Ω-validity and Ω-valid respectively, and this unfortunately cannot be changed. (I tried to argue years ago that we should have case-sensitivity when the first letter is non-Latin, but that went nowhere fast.) --Trovatore (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no expertise in the mathematics content, but if title case conversion prevents disambiguation, then this probably needs a disambiguation page, as it done with Omega-logic. That is, make Ω-validity, Ω-valid, Omega-valid, etc., redirects to a dab page to direct readers to the proper Ω- or ω- topics. --Mark viking (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that might be part of the solution. Is there a standard notion of ω-validity to point to? I could guess that it means something like "true in every ω-model", although one then wants to ask, ω-model of what. I'm not sure you can make sense of ω-models without requiring that the model satisfy some minimal fragment of set theory or arithmetic. Maybe you can; I haven't thought about it very deeply. Or maybe it could mean "provable without using any non-logical axioms, but allowing ω-rule". These notions are probably not the same, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are both attested in the literature, though I do not remember encountering either of them. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: Seems I made a mistake — Ω-logic does in fact discuss Ω-validity. So it's a reasonable redirect, unless we also need to address ω-validity. Do we? --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

How about this edit? --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine as far as it goes. I tried looking for ω-valid on Google Scholar to get a sense of the urgency of the problem. I'm thinking "not very urgent". The highest hits are irrelevant (accidental juxtapositions), and the Woodin notion with the uppercase Ω shows up before any relevant hit with lowercase ω. There are two relevant hits on the first page, which are probably not the same notion: http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-11512-7.pdf#page=216 and http://www.springerlink.com/index/u66p0010q2161181.pdf. If someone wants to write about one of those, we can revisit the issue, but for now I think we're OK without a target for lowercase ω-valid. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Red links in List of Italian mathematicians

An editor removed all red links from List of Italian mathematicians with the edit summary "rm non notable. Must have their own wiki page to be included" I reverted the edit on the grounds that red links in such lists were essential to encourage creation of new articles, only to be reverted again, this time with edit summary "violation of WP:V". Is there removal of red links appropriate? 223.227.124.160 (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Usually, in lists of indeterminate size such as this one, we need a rule that we are listing only the notable members rather than all of them: only notable Italian mathematicians, not just anyone who is Italian and a mathematician. (See WP:CSC.) Sometimes that means only bluelinks, and sometimes that means that redlinks can be ok if they are clearly notable and include footnotes justifying their notability. But having a redlink farm without sources in article space is probably a mistake. In the diff you link to from last February, only unsourced redlinks were removed — the names that didn't have articles yet here, but did have articles in the Italian Wikipedia, were left in place. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

How does one LaTeXify semantics around here?

Hi. For "semantics of X" I normally use (a macro using) \llbracket and \rrbracket, which seem not to exist on Wikipedia. I can hack it with negative spaces, like so, [\![ X ]\!] :$[\![X]\!]$, but I fear for my sanity if I have to do that too often. I checked Denotational semantics to see how the authors survived, and they cheated by using the symbols in UTF8 in the running text, which does not help me in math mode. Is there a sanity-preserving way of doing semantics symbols in math mode? — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 17:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Theorem of the unique homomorphic extension

The article titled Theorem of the unique homomorphic extension is in terrible shape. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Aggressive spamming of a recent arXiv posting, "decision streams"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP editors (including, but not limited to, 46.39.231.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 46.39.231.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 46.39.231.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 46.39.231.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 103.28.36.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 62.119.167.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been aggressively adding references to the recent arXiv paper 1704.07657 and wikilinks to the neologism decision stream (this is a link to a draft article, there is no mainspace target). I've reverted perhaps 30 instances in the past few days; the only instance I know remains is at decision tree learning. I have not tried to communicate with any of the IPs. Anyone who wants to help out with any of the obvious associated tasks is very welcome to do so! --JBL (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Three IP addresses have now restored the spam in at least 13 articles, see e.g. [10]. Suggestions? --JBL (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Might be a appropriate to set some of the affected article to semiprotectipn if the problem persist. I've posted note with regard to sourcing policies at the draft.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: The IPs might be identical or related to User talk:AlexNet22, so i guess he might be another obvious point of contact.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, semi-protection would be good -- the additions have continued. If there is an administrator here who is interested, I can give a complete list of affected articles. I will try AlexNet22, although at this point I am probably not the best messenger. --JBL (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I have semiprotected a bunch of these (the ones I could find with multiple spam-revert cycles) for two weeks. Please me know if I missed any or if the problem recurs once the semiprotection expires. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much. A quick glance suggests you got them all. --JBL (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein:, one more: [11] --JBL (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. There was also another one you missed on Outline of machine learning. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Joel,

Thanks for your comprehensive massages. Sorry, I've missed all discussions.

We'll wait for publication of the article and citation of decision stream technique in other official publications before change the draft Decision stream into the Wikipedia article and restore the work of several people, who cautiously added small fragments of text about decision stream into appropriate places of Wikipedia articles. It's a pity, that this information can't be available for interested readers of Wikipedia now.

Kind regards, AlexNet22 (talk)

By the way, it's funny to see how earnestly David Eppstein adds into draft massage: 'See related discussion re aggressive spamming of this non-notable new unpublished work at WT:WPM#Aggressive spamming of a recent arXiv posting, "decision streams"'

AlexNet22 (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

And now, a massage from Joel B Lewis. EEng 22:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear @AlexNet22:, thanks, the proposal you've outlined in your second paragraph sounds reasonable to me. If there are other papers that use this concept, it would be great to add more references to the draft. Also, it would be very helpful for others and for discussion purposes if you could try to edit from your account, rather than as a logged-out IP user, as much as possible. All the best, JBL (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

EEng, David Eppstein, I would like to suggest, in the spirit of WP:AGF, that as long as AlexNet22 and the IP users do not resume adding links to the preprint, it is ok to let the pointer on the draft go. (There is also a pointer to this page on the talk page; I will add a specific pointer to this discussion.) Thanks, JBL (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. I found your massage very relaxing, BTW. EEng 20:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I want to make sure that any reviewer who might consider approving the draft for mainspace knows about the issues. But if you think that other channels such as the draft's talk page are adequate for that purpose, then maybe the notice isn't necessary. I note, however, that the talk page has also been repeatedly blanked. Regardless, the draft does need to be clearly marked as a draft, so that readers don't think it's already an article. I will try adding {{Draft article}} instead. If AlexNet22 or his IP minions continue removing such notices, the only alternative may be to delete the draft altogether. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

David Eppstein, yes, this sounds totally reasonable. (And I intend to keep the draft on my watchlist, which I check fairly regularly.) Also thanks for moving the note there while I was distracted by real life :). EEng, my pleasure ;). --JBL (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, David. My commits don't contain any external link (your reason to remove my updates). Could you please restore committed information. AlexNet22 (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The spam warnings I left on your talk page are boilerplate designed more for external link spammers, but the warning itself applies equally well to your reference spamming. Why have you gone back to spamming your non-notable preprint across Wikipedia? Nothing has changed to give it more significance than it had a week ago. Stop your spam or get blocked. My advice would be to (1) find some other area within Wikipedia to contribute to, where you can apply your expertise but without any possibility of self-citation or other conflicts of interest, (2) work steadily on improving articles in that area for at least an entire year, refraining from any mention of your own work or close colleagues, and (3) once you have demonstrated that you are a good-faith contributor to Wikipedia and not just a self-promoter, and once your paper has had time to accumulate some impact (if it ever does), consider citing it only in those articles where it is most directly relevant (rather than, as now, anything even tangentially related). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear David,

1. This is not my preprint and I edit articles in the area, which corresponds to my professional knowledge.

2. I consider your actions against several editors only as a vandal actions.

Please restore the committed information ASAP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexNet22 (talk • contribs)

No. It's off-topic and it's spam. You stop. As for "I edit articles in the area": your contributions show that all you have done here involves spamming this preprint or discussing your spam, with no constructive contributions in this area. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Without been able to describe reason for his actions continuously reverts information submitted by different editors in appropriate places of articles: "Decision tree learning", "Pruning (decision trees)", "Directed acyclic graph", "Chi-square automatic interaction detection", "Predictive analytics", "Statistical classification". AlexNet22 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:ANI is thataway. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Yes, David aggressively deleted all my commits. He's just in a war against the idea of Decision stream provided by scientific community 62.119.167.36 (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It is rather the other way around. The decision stream prononents seem resistant to advice and are unwilling to read and understand and WP guideline and policies. Now there have been already a couple of experienced editors and not just David, who've asked you to change your behaviour and if you don't it will end up with a ban.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Since editors favoring inclusion seems to be under the misconception that this discussion provides some support for inclusion of this unpublished research in Wikipedia, I state unambiguously that I am opposed to its inclusion. In addition to my own opinion on the matter, the content under discussion violates Wikipedia policy, which requires that the material be published in reliable secondary sources (WP:PSTS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:NOR). Since the only source appears to be self-published, it fails these requirements on multiple fronts, and inclusion of these fringe views is clear WP:UNDUE weight to an insignificant minority viewpoint. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sławomir,

Would you like to take into account opinion and fair work of new scientific community, which uses Decision stream in huge number of experiments and supports development of this direction. As well, it's good to see discussion of this situation, not just aggressive removing of information by David Eppstein. 31.44.94.244 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

No, we're not a publisher of original research. Secondary sources, such as academic books or review articles, are usually required. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If there are properly published papers (or textbook content) on decision streams then you may write an article on decision streams based on those. In addition you may link preprints on arxiv of already (journal) published articles or other digital copies. But writing an article or even just content pieces merely based on arxiv papers that not have been published elsewhere in a journal or book is an absolute no-go in WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I also take advantage of Decision stream in my work and have to say that AlexNet22 agreed to postponed an activity in Wikipedia until the article is published. But it was proposed "in the spirit of WP:AGF, that as long as AlexNet22 and the IP users do not resume adding links to the preprint, it is ok to let the pointer on the draft go". And David Eppstein replied "this sounds totally reasonable". But as soon as the most impotent information was restored (without links to the preprint) it was deleted. You are professionals we are - too. Lets have at least small respect to the work of scientific community, which is done twice and which was removed by Eppstein.

Thanks, 78.108.46.137 (talk) Dave

The arXiv preprint is where it always was, available for you to use and cite. And all I agreed to was to drop the comment about the aggressive spamming on the draft page and replace it with a standard draft template. I did not agree to allow wikilinks from articles to the draft (that would be against Wikipedia policy) and I did not agree to allow the decision streaming content back onto Wikipedia article space. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't understand the discussion, but aggressively deletes the commits of editors 78.108.46.137 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Dave

I believe that JBL's reasonable suggestion has been misconstrued and has formed the basis of this most recent round of spamming sans links. There is clearly a language problem here and perhaps we need to be a little more explicit in our explanations. Wikipedia is not the place to publish new ideas and novel methods, the editors here are obliged to remove material of that nature which has not appeared in some published form that has been vetted by the scientific community. David Eppstein is not being aggressive with these reverts, he is just carrying out the community guidelines of Wikipedia. If David wasn't doing this then some other editors would be (I would for instance); he's just faster than the rest of us. As individuals, we are not antagonistic to new and developing ideas, but Wikipedia is just not the right venue for presenting them. When, and if, these concepts meet our criteria for inclusion, we will be happy to do so and assist you in creating a good article, but until then you must abide by our guidelines.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, Bill. Let's consider the issue's been closed. Of course, we are not against the Wikipedia rules 78.108.46.137 (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Dave

Dears, hope nobody is against the change of the title of the topic to the more tolerant - "Decision stream references discussion" (except David Eppstein, who is always against) 31.44.94.244 (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please, stop this vandal, who doesn't have common sense, doesn't understand the Wikipedia tolerance policy, and just aggressively moves against idea of Decision stream in all possible ways 31.44.94.244 (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Epstein's undoing is perfectly legitimate. The only vandalism, here, is yours, which consists of changing headings without good reasons and without consensus. D.Lazard (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please, ask Joel about the change of original title and, please, be tolerant not like this vandal - David Eppstein 62.119.167.36 (talk)

• I think it is appropriate that the first to change should have asked, I just restored it again. Furthermore, I object to your use of this vandal in this context here. Purgy (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Please, stop your aggressive actions.

Looks like David Eppstein asks his friend to help him in this aggression 31.44.94.244 (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Please, take notice that I do not consider restoring of content not violating respectable rules as an aggressive act, whereas I am convinced that insisting on calling others vandals for their taking care of WP guidelines is plain aggression, restoring this aggression is still more aggressive.
• Please, also take notice that I did not even exchange cards with any of the concerned people around here, so it is ridiculous to assume, I had been called upon for my act, which I, as mentioned already, do not allow to be called aggressive, nota bene as a friend. Purgy (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear D.Lazard, several editors marked David Eppstein as vandal, due to his extraordinary aggressiveness. Please, don't edit their opinion by request of your friend! 46.39.231.235 (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

And none of it matters, because this is clear meat- or sock-puppetry, and his edits do not fall under the definition of 'vandalism'. You've already been pointed in the correct direction multiple times, pretending otherwise is disruptive.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

To the IP editor (and sock puppets): Please see the rule against more than three reverts on the same page within 24 hours at WP:3RR. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Joel B. Lewis, could you please approve the change of this topic title to "Decision stream references discussion". Unfortunately, AlexNet22 is not available now, so I ask you directly. 62.119.167.36 (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC) Jane

I doubt that Joel B. Lewis could approve that you change his edits. In any case, you are not allowed to do this change yourself; see WP:TALKO. where you can read Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning. Moreover, there are several links to this discussion, and changing the heading break these links. D.Lazard (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Jeez. It should be obvious enough that the article does not yet meet the conditions of WP:Notability. There really is nothing more to discuss. Dmcq (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section heading

Can we please stop this senseless edit warring that has now devolved into argument over the heading of the above closed discussion. To hopefully calm the waters, let me bring up some points about section headings that even some of our most experienced editors haven't gotten completely right. First of all, section headings can be changed (but I don't know if this applies to closed discussions) and are not owned by the originator or anyone else involved in the discussion (WP:TALKO). Joel is not required to approve or comment on a section heading change, however, it is considered to be polite if the originator is involved (or asked to be) in the discussion. A reason for changing a heading may be to provide a clearer description of the content of the discussion. However, this must be done with care to ensure that the intent of the original poster is not changed (WP:TALKNO). And, as usual, if editors disagree on a change the issue needs to be discussed (leaving the original in place) until a consensus is reached. Having said that, let me turn to the specifics of this argument. Which heading better reflects the discussion? It is clear to me that the issue being discussed involved the activities of several IP's in various articles around the introduction of material concerning "decision streams". The single reference in the draft article was quickly dealt with as an unusable arXiv article. Thus, changing the heading to talk about references, I find to be highly misleading. Furthermore, I don't see that the original (and current) heading is derogatory with respect to the topic of decision streams, only with the spamming activity associated with it.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Grandi's series

I (again) took out two hand-wavy methods here. This article needs a lot of love in general; misconceptions like this only get in the way of the reader's understanding. I'm posting here in the hopes they could be made rigorous, but as-is, they are flatly not (for starters, they don't even try to use an alternative method of summation).--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Glasser's master theorem

I have created a new article titled Glasser's master theorem.

The following tasks could improve it:

• Concrete examples of integrals to which it is applicable;
• Other articles linking to it;
• Maybe a proof? Or maybe not?;
• etc.

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's the easy part of linking other articles to it:

• Glasser's Master Theorem (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlomilch substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlömilch substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlömilch transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlömilch substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlomilch substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlömilch transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlomilch transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlomilch transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlomilch Substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlomilch Substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlömilch Substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlömilch Substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlömilch Transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlömilch Transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlomilch Transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlomilch Transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

Michael Hardy (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Why not Cauchy's residue theorem? -- Taku (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi, just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of a specific program for this. There is the template {{subst:MathWelcome}}. --Mark viking (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Goldbach's weak conjecture proof

I have recently ran afoul of Sapphorain in attempting to add the (fairly obvious) consequence that every even number is the sum of four primes to the prime number article, having been reverted with the explanation that the arXiv preprints released by Harald Helfgott are not an acceptable source, and having been told that referring to Helfgott's website itself (listing future publication) is crystal-gazing since acceptance would have been listed by ArXiv under "journal references". Given how this was taken up nearly immediately on Terry Tao's Google+, and got Helfgott the Humboldt Professorship, and was apparently first added to Wikipedia by JosephSilverman (clearly the Joseph H. Silverman, given the name and his link to his home page on his userpage), one would have thought that this result had already been thoroughly checked and vetted even before the publication. But, since I am already involved in the dispute, I would like to ask here if Helfgott's arXiv papers should be considered an acceptable source for Wikipedia, given these circumstances. Double sharp (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The very fact that Helfgott’s paper takes so much time to be published should make us cautious. Remember it took several years until Wiles’ proof of Fermat’s theorem was published, precisely because there was originally a hole in it. There is no urgency for wikipedia to rush in announcing a result before it has been announced by the journal to which Helfgott’s paper has been submitted (we don’t even know which journal it is). Sapphorain (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I would say not, if the only publication is on arXiv. Whatever the reason it has not appeared in a journal yet, that means it has not been published by a reliable source. A G+ post and the web site of his employer are not reliable sources on this. We should wait until it is formally published, as it surely will be if it is a good result.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh I feel the pain. I have no difficulty in believing the result to be valid, but I am forced to agree with the others and say that we should not give special credence to this arXiv preprint. I view this as a very slippery slope, accepting this source now will just make it easier to accept this source in the future when the bona fides may not be as stellar, and then from there ... . This is just not a path I wish to go down. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

In that case, should we not also substantially de-accent the result on the page on Goldbach's weak conjecture? As it stands, the lede makes it seem much more certain than it may be, and the categorisation in Category:Conjectures that have been proved is hardly helping matters. Double sharp (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there's no reason not to wait until publication to add his result to Wikipedia but according to Helgott's webpage his preprint has been accepted for publication in Annals of math. studies (see the "Livre - Mathématiques pures" section in teh list). jraimbau (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Disagreement at 0.999...

Talk:0.999...#Definition would benefit from more opinions of those that actually know some mathematics, and less of those who clearly know nothing, but are keen on reverting changes to the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added two dispute tags to the article. We seem to be at an impasse, and editors seem to be piling on without understanding the dispute (or the subject of the article). At issue is whether this revision is better than this one. I contend that the latter fails to comply with NPOV, because it does not adequately address the shortcomings of the supposed "algebraic proofs", and also does not define the subject of the article until the eleventh paragraph. A lot of Randy's are stalking the article. Opinions of experienced mathematicians are needed! Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This talk page really needs the attention of someone who actually knows something. The talk page seems to be completely ruled by editors who clearly have a very limited understanding of the topic (and apparently disagree with the way sources discuss the subject). Pinging: @David Eppstein:, @Tsirel:, @CBM:, @D.Lazard: Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

There is now an RfC. Opinions are welcome. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

A draft to look at...

if interested, naturally. The draft is Draft:Residue (Complex Geometry), which seems to discuss residues on hypersurfaces. In your opinion, would this merit its own article, could it safely be discussed at Residue (complex analysis), or does it merit inclusion at all in Wikipedia? Thanks, /wiae /tlk 19:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is the same thing as poincaré residue; so the merger with that article (but not "residue (complex analysis)") is appropriate here. -- Taku (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

A merger to Residue (complex analysis) would be less than ideal. Poincaré residue is a vastly superior merge target. I personally would like to know why it it restricted to $\mathbb {P} ^{n}$ though. Is there a constraint on the normal bundle? Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Because the definition of a hypersurface is less clear. On a general but still smooth variety, you probably want to consider something that is locally a hypersurface; i.e., a divisor. But then the theory becomes that of logarithmic differential forms (i.e., a meromorphic form with poles along a divisor). If you even want to weaken smoothness, the definition of a divisor becomes unclear... -- Taku (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Red links in infoboxes

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of " n-Dimensional rotation matrix generation algorithm" is proposed

I don't have an opinion on this one (yet). Those who do should comment at the following page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/N-Dimensional_rotation_matrix_generation_algorithm Michael Hardy (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Solèr's theorem

Solèr's theorem could probably use work. For one thing, currently only one other article links to it. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Stale Abstract mathematic Draft pages, again

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2016/Mar#Abstract_Geometry_creations_languishing_in_Draft_namespace
• User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report
• Draft:K-theory of a category
• Draft:Matsusaka's big theorem
• Draft:Tensor product of representations
• Draft:Graded Hopf algebra
• and many more

I come back again trying to figure out what to do with these sub-stubs of geometric pages, some which are not referenced at all. I no longer care about the page creator's feelings as we had this debate over a year ago and it got mired down in the nitty gritty of debating the terminology. Can someone from this project take a look at the StaleDrafts report and figure out what should be kept, what should be redirected to a mainspace page, and what should be deleted? Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Also note that the author thinks that stubs that are completely effectively one liners that come effectively from a textbook are better than a redirect to a relatively close page. Can someone from this project please evaluate since they seem to believe that an outsider who doesn't have theoritical math experience can't judge the pages to the point of WP:OWN? This was noted last year only to have it die out. I'd prefer not to wave an WP:AN scrutiny beam over the massive WP:OWN-ership that is going on, but this is not an acceptable use of draft space and the continual heaping on of more problematic stubs in draft space. Hasteur (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

No the question need to be asked: why does something have to be done to them? I get you feel that way; may I suggest you change your mind? (It's not acceptable to you; I get it. But it is acceptable to the community.) -- Taku (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you need to be Tendentious with your editing:

1. We're not a permanant repository of content
2. Draft space is intended to be temporary storage of pages
3. YOUR pages are amongst the 50 oldest drafts that have not had a single edit since 2014 and by proxy STALE
4. Your land grabs of the titles prevents others from creating potentially better articles
5. Your land grabs give the impression you want the "creation" credit thereby missing the point of Wikipedia and Draft space
6. Your pages only give a barest minimum to give context and therefore aren't useful
7. Your pages would be better served by making them redirects to the topic (Really: Is Toroidal Embedding different than Toric variety In algebraic geometry, a toric variety or torus embedding is an algebraic variety?)
8. Your creations are so esoteric that they either belong on MathOverflow (which you're referencing) or are single line definitions from Graduate level mathematics textbooks.

Your pages were called out last year only to have you nitpick the exact definitions. You were asked to fix it last year, and you have only continued to add more pages to Draft space without fixing the current ones. I could call one of the less accomidating editors to just go ahead and outright delete the page like how Legacypac tried earlier this month. Hasteur (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Again the problem is that you're arbitrary imposing some rules that are not agreed up on by community. For example, "2. Draft space is intended to be temporary storage of pages"; again who said this? It is a place to hold drafts not temporary pages. Why do you think the draft namespace has "draft" not "temp". The same kind of refutations go to the other items, which I leave as exercises for you to solve. (It's confusing but torus embedding ≠ toroidal embedding; there is a genuine difference.) -- Taku (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:DRAFT Drafts are administration pages in the Draft namespace where new articles may be stored. They help facilitate new articles to develop and receive feedback before being moved to Wikipedia's mainspace. If you are logged in, creating a draft before directly publishing the article is optional. Editors may instead choose to create draft pages in their userspace, or directly into mainspace, if they prefer Drafts are meant to be works in progress, and most will not meet Wikipedia's standards for quality at first. You haven't edited these in over 2 years while creating new pages and Drafts. You were asked to stop creating new pages and focus cleaning up the ones you've already created. Hasteur (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I read it twice and I cannot find the word "temporary"; "new articles" here are meant to indicate it is not a place to hold the content; it is a place for the creation of new articles. That's my understanding exactly. The error here is thinking some fixed timeframe must be attached to the creation and development of the content. That's not consistent with the wiki-way, the perpetual state of work-in-progress. -- Taku (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

And no, it was not acceptable to the community (see last year's discussion) to see that the memebers of this project really wanted you to take that content to somewhere else. Therefore I request last year's contributors (Sławomir Biały—Ozob—David Eppstein) to disabuse you of that silly notion that it was ok. Hasteur (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

We apparently have different memory; what I remember the members thought some of drafts are content-less. I don't recall the use of the draft namespace was incorrect or anything; also by the community, I am also thinking of MfD and deletion reviews. It is the community's decision that those drafts need not be deleted. Please get over it. -- Taku (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

If you review MfD you will find we delete abandoned pages all the time. Draft space is not a permanent shadow encyclopedia of topics that are not suitable for mainspace and not being worked on. It is clear here you have no interest in working on these "less than stubs" and they clutter up maintenance categories. I propose we move all stale draft content to one user subpage. Each topic can have a subheading and it's content and any links below that. I found User:TakuyaMurata/DraftsUser:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage where the existing links could be converted to sections. (This also shows there are many such abandoned drafts). That work for you? Legacypac (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a chance. I mean who gave you the right to dictate the use of the draft namespace? The draftspace exists for editors who are interested in the creation of new content. Some sit in the draftspace precisely because they are not even stubs; the stubs belong to the main namespace. If the concern is on the notability, for example, I can address each topic individually. But typically the notability is clear to math editors (and that should be enough). -- Taku (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTWEBHOST, no page at Wikipedia is available for indefinite storage of notes regardless of the obviousness of notability to mathematicians. Wikipedia relies on collaboration, so why would there be an objection to the proposal regarding a user subpage? The alternative would be to require a tedious discussion to consider that pages for deletion. Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Very disappointed that there is neither a plan to get these mainspace ready or willingness to hold the info on a userspace page for now. Therefore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Cotensor_product we start with the shortest stale one and work from there. Legacypac (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Because if the editors put their drafts at their user pages, what is the point of the draftspace in the first place? Perhaps it is about the style of content development: why impose a certain fixed timeframe? i.e., deadlines. Like in news publications, of course, deadlines help get the things done. In Wikipedia, we have chosen the different content development style (namely, wiki). In the mainspace, it is not rare for some stuby article sits for years and then suddenly get expanded (e.g., poincaré residue). What we have discovered is that the traditional time-framed content development is not the only way (in fact, Wikipedia has shown the wiki-way works better.) I get you (plural) want to impose some more transitional editing-style; you don't have the right to do that; not only that, it's not consistent with WP:DEADLINE (having no plan is the wiki way). -- Taku (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion over what the "Draft" namespace actually is for. I admit to suffering from a share of this confusion myself. However, I do not think it should be used for indefinite storage of content that is not likely one day to become an article. On the contrary, from the first two sentences of Wikipedia:Drafts: "Drafts are administration pages in the Draft namespace where new articles may be stored. They help facilitate new articles to develop and receive feedback before being moved to Wikipedia's mainspace." (emphasis mine). This implies that content in the draft mainspace should be relatively new, and it should recognizably be suitable as an article. This having been said, I do not think I would object if the draft that was nominated for deletion, Draft:Cotensor product, were actually made into a mainspace stub (ideally supported by a reference). Some of the other drafts are clearly not ready for mainspace, like Draft:K-theory of a category, and should be userfied. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree some drafts are not ready for the mainspace. But why userify? Isn't the purpose of the draftspace precisely for the development of the content like this. -- Taku (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Why not userfy them? For me it is enough that some editors and administrators do not want these in the namespace, and a perfectly reasonable solution is just to userfy them. Surely everyone is then happy? But I'm not going to argue much about it in any case. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

key words "development of the content". There is no development. Legacypac (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

What is the key is why you are the one who decides what is being developed or not or what is the proper use of the draftspace. That's for what MfD is for and the consensus is that they need not be deleted. I get you want such an authority; you do not have it. It's very problematic to try to obtain such a power by harassing the editors who merely interested in the encyclopedia building. -- Taku (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#RfC:_on_the_proper_use_of_the_draftspace. (It doesn't make sense, aside from avoiding harassment, to move those drafts to my user page since the draftspace was created as an alternative place for the user drafts, for instance, to allow for the repurposeing of the materials when the user left.) -- Taku (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Does the word "duals" exist as plural of "dual"?

"duals is" and "duals are" appear to suggest that "duals" refers to Dual (mathematics) rather than Duals a U2 download. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly true that one can use "duals" as a plural of "dual" in mathematics; for instance, the duals of sets of points in the projective plane are arrangements of lines. I have no strong opinion on which should be the primary topic but if Duals points to the music topic it should definitely have a hat pointing to Dual (disambiguation).

Looking carefully at the "duals is" constructions shows that the singular noun of the sentence is not duals. Since our page titles are singular, the current usage seems to be correct (Wikipedia:PLURALPT). I would agree that the music page needs a hat to the disambiguation page. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Aug 2017

Question about two new mathematics journals

Hi all, There is a discussion here about two new mathematics journals, and whether they are (yet) suitable subjects for a Wikipedia article. Your thoughts are welcome. Thanks, JBL (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

MR, JfM, Zbl error checking

Please comment at Help talk:Citation Style 1#JFM error checking and other sections.

If someone has the exact specification for those identifiers, that would be much appreciated too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Adjoint representation of a Lie algebra

There's a clear consensus to merge Adjoint representation into Adjoint representation of a Lie algebra. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Lie algebra willing to do it? I'm too ignorant. Klbrain (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

A new editor that I think could use some assistance

Please see my discussion at User talk:Alireza Badali#User:Alireza Badali/A new version of Goldbach's conjecture concerning User:Alireza Badali/A new version of Goldbach's conjecture. It looks to me as though User:Alireza Badali could be a great help to this project given some guidance. I'm taking the liberty of pinging a random few of you who have edited recently. @Hasteur, In ictu oculi, and David Eppstein:. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Um... I'm not an abstract math editor. In my subjective view I think you hit the nail on the head that this reads like WP:OR and might be the basis of a published work. Thinking about a previous case where user's work here was pushed to mainspace only to find out that the user was using wikipedia as a staging ground for creating a published article in a journal (Affective piety) I think we might want to task the user if they're intending on submitting this to a journal, and if so CSD:G7 (Author self delete) so as to retain their copyright. Hasteur (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I didn't know that that would allow them to use it freely, as the notes at the bottom of the edit field say By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. I don't want to misinform them. They are saying they wish to close their account, which is a shame. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The problem is lots of journals have a "Anything you submit to us must not be public domain accessable" rule (because they want "exclusive content" Hasteur (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Thanks. But how does me deleting the page save his copyright? Doug Weller talk 12:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If the page is deleted, when the journal goes out to search, they may not be able to find it. Hasteur (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I have never actually encountered a journal that didn't like prior public versions. But maybe standards are different in different areas. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: In mathematics one can submit to a journal something that's been on the arXiv, but in biology they have "embargoes". Michael Hardy (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Most of my pubs are in CS journals rather than math ones, but there also embargoes are unknown. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Cut-the-Knot nominated for deletion

Comment here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cut-the-Knot. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Archimedes-lab.org nominated for deletion

Comment here, if you so desire: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes-lab.org. XOR'easter (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Prime Number Distribution Series

Can someone else please look at this new article? I am wondering whether it is original research in the Wikipedia sense. It has two references, but they both appear to be the author's own, so that I don't see any peer-reviewed work. The author also seems to be making "interesting" claims to have discovered something about prime numbers that hasn't been learned by anyone else in 2300 years of increasingly complex rigorous mathematical study. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, OR. The author asks "Please do not disrupt the ongoing work!" on the talk page there. Well, he could continue the work on his userspace. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Clearly a deletion candidate IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

To be complete, the comment not to disrupt the ongoing work had been included when the author was still building the article in mainspace, and I then moved it into draft space to give him room to finish it, but he did more work and then moved it back into mainspace. AFD is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This author is unknown to both MathSciNet and Zbl. This page is clearly OR and should be deleted. Sapphorain (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which this project has been involved. The thread is "Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata". Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the complaint against Takuya Murata. Can someone explain why the existence of these drafts is a problem? If it is a problem, could it be solved by moving them to the user namespace? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Michael Hardy: Read the above section "Stale Abstratic mathematic Draft pages, again" and the linked discussion from last year where Takuya has explicitly rejected moving it to their userspace. Hasteur (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Just to put my side of the story on the record: I objected to the moves since that would defeat the purpose of the draftspace. How is it the case it would be ok if I were to work on them in my userspace but not in the draftspace? The logic is simply broken here. I can be persuaded only if some legitimate reason is given (not just harassment.) -- Taku (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

User Drrob2017

I would like to bring attention to a new user Drrob2017 User talk:Drrob2017 with a single purpose account who has been updating many mathematical pages with references to a certain piece of work, possibly his. Limit-theorem (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Clearly the reference might be legit in places; but what made me suspicious is finding it on unrelated probability theory pages, presented as if it were a standard reference.Limit-theorem (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Faithfully flat descent‎

Hi all,

There is a disagreement as to whether the development of the math-related articles in the main namespace benefits from redirecting this draft (at Draft talk:Faithfully flat descent‎) to the mainspace. I find the logic absurd but, since math is absurdity anyway, we can use some additional inputs to break the tie. Thanks! -- Taku (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Or Taku could try to canvas support for what they precieve as supportave editors... You know... Try to dillute any consensus. WP:Mathematics has already told Taku that these are problematic and probably belong in their Userspace. Hasteur (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresenting the other people's views get us to nowhere "these are problematic and probably belong in their Userspace". There is no such a consensus. You need to get out of the fantasy land; I'm still waiting in the real (and virtual!) world where we are trying to build the encyclopedia. -- Taku (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Hasteur acts according to the guidelines of WikiProject Abandoned Drafts, while Taku disagrees with these guidelines. If so, then the question is really not "Faithfully flat descent" but "Abandoned drafts"; do we agree with its guidelines, or not? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The scope of that project is "Any drafts that are created by users who are deemed inactive". Taku is obviously not inactive. Therefore, it should be clear that his drafts are out of scope for their guidelines. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I suggest you re-read the purpose of WP Abandoned trafts. Several Wikipedians have formed this collaboration resource and group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's use of article drafts left in retired users' subpages and in Draft space. (empasis mine) Please take a look at the goals section and see that Taku's creations fall square in the middle of Abandoned drafts. Hasteur (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Since when is Taku a retired user? Or are you interpreting anything left in draft space, even by non-retired users, as somehow abandoned, despite the clear statement which I quoted from your project's page that it is about inactive users only? Next, you will be determining that stubs in article space created by retired users are also abandoned drafts? And then, all stubs? Where does it stop? Your project has a clear mission statement. You have clearly overstepped it. Now, instead of actually cleaning up bad drafts, you seem to have set your goal to be harassing active users into retirement in order to justify the claim that their drafts are abandoned. How does that help build an encyclopedia? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

We're cleaning up bad drafts by trying to focus the effort into mainspace. Taku's creations have languished for over 2 years without Taku doing anything about it. Taku was nagged about them over a year ago. Some of the creations are barely 2 sentences, some are a "See Also" section and 2 references. How else are we supposed to convince Taku to fix their problem. I've tried offering them Userspace which has been rejected, we've tried bargining with "Trial by Mainspace" to see if Taku is willing to put their money where their mouth is (and was flatly rejected), we've tried submitting them to AfC to have a review go over them (and those were reverted), so now we're trying Redirect discussions (because bold redirection is being reverted as "Vandalism") and MFDs to compel Taku to either fix the pages or let them go. Taku is only the frequent target because they created 200ish drafts 2 years ago and hasn't come back after several reminders and requests to fix them. In short Taku's been abusing WP:NOTWEBHOST, refuses to fix the problem, and has generally been disruptive in forming a consensus. Hasteur (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Before asking "How else are we supposed to convince Taku to fix their problem", maybe you should ask "is there actually a problem", and "are we supposed to ask Taku to fix it". I have seen you cross-posting to many different message boards trying to build support for your position that Taku should somehow be censured for creating these drafts. I have not seen you actually justify the position that the existence of these drafts is causing any harm to anybody. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"Do not take drafts from active users. If the draft has been stale for an exceptional amount of time, however, feel free to leave a note on their talk page asking if they plan on finishing the draft." (From these guidelines.) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tsirel: See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2016/Mar#Abstract_Geometry_creations_languishing_in_Draft_namespace and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2017/Jul#Stale_Abstract_mathematic_Draft_pages.2C_again where the issue was raised at this talk page and Taku participated. Raising the issue in a non-combative forum (as opposed to Deletion Proceedings, or forced redirection) has been tried and gets nitpicked off into oblivion to the point that Taku argues there is no consensus to do anything. We kick the can down the road 6 months and come back to the same conversation where people request Taku to fix the pages, Taku tries for every loophole and exception, it gets ignored and we repeat again in 6 months. I'd love for Taku to actually do something about the pages, but with over 200 times as many bytes spent debate-defending these and not a single byte spent on actually resolving the issue, you can see how a certain section of the community's patience is wearing thin. Hasteur (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

And isn't it time for you to get the point; there is no solid support for the view that the old drafts are problematic (just because they are old) and that they need to be fixed. -- Taku (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I am supportive of the overall effort to streamline the draft namespace for the purposes of AfC and active development drafts. I do not think it is consistent with the purpose of this namespace to be an indefinite host for sandboxes. Drafts with no encyclopedic content that have been abandoned for years should be deleted, and userfied upon request. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that non-encyclopedic content has no place in Wikipedia; the question here is an old encyclopedic content; does it need to be gone just because it's old? Should we start deleting old stubs in the mainspace? -- Taku (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Stubs without context or content in mainspace are deleted quite routinely under WP:CSD. They do not have to be old for these criteria to apply. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure. And I have changed my position to delete/expand some of my shortndraft pages without context or content. The draftpage in question certainly has some meat. -- Taku (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, ok. I agree with this. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is an open merge proposal at Talk:Chow coordinates. Please feel free to provide constructive commentary that does further the purpose of wikipedia's first pillar "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". Commentary that makes "What about X" arguments, "I wrote this so I get to decide it's fate" arguments, and arguments as to what the purpose of various namespaces is unwelcome and will be treated as disruptive editing. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Again again the "old" is not a good reason for the merger. -- Taku (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

K-theory of a category

I tried to fix the most mechanical issues, like dead links in the references, but this page needs a lot of work. It has no lede, and the first section stops in mid-sentence. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I added a lede. It will take a more knowledgable editor to fill in the subsequent sections. --Mark viking (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I have moved it back to the draftspace since I don't think it's ready for the mainspace. -- Taku (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku, that's out of order and I'm filing at Requested Moves to have it be put back as an undiscussed out of process move that has caused more harm than it fixes. Hasteur (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

But is it more polite to consult the main writer of the draft for the move to the mainspace in the first place? Remember the goal is not the cleanup but building an encyclopedia. Keep the priority straight. -- Taku (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Your ownership is so far beyond pale that you just need to sit down. The page already had at least a 50% chance of surviving in mainspace. That you want to pull it back into draft namespace gain demonstrates that you don't want to build mainspace, you want to protect your creations. @XOR'easter and Mark viking: would you mind talking Taku down from this ledge as this ownership is 100% unacceptable. Hasteur (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You provided the basic content, a lede has been added, sentence fragments have been fixed, and XOR'easter has done a good job of fixing up references. More development is possible, but I think the article is a reasonable stub at this point. --Mark viking (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

On a second thought, Mark is correct. It looks ok to be in the mainspace. My apology for the knee jerk reaction. -- Taku (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks, Taku. --Mark viking (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably helped when an admin forcably prevented page moves and endorsed the page's viability for mainspace (RHaworth moved page Draft:K-theory of a category to K-theory of a category without leaving a redirect: Hasteur and I both think it is ready for mainspace) Hasteur (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

You're point being? -- Taku (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Can you have some faith in the people? -- Taku (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. When you've stomped over multiple extensions of AGF it's hard to have "faith" in your actions. Hasteur (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

It is rumored that Wikipedia is driven by males, while Wikihow by females. And indeed, Wikihow is less scandalous.   :-)   Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I have been referred as "they" so apparently I'm gender-less :) Anyway to be on the record, there are some drafts started by me that are actually ready to be moved to the mainspace. Among those is this one. I made a mistake of undoing the move, which I regret. All I'm asking or in fact am being puzzled is this urgency to get things done "right this moment". Will the climate of Wikipedia reach such an unsustainable level if I didn't complete 10 or 20 drafts? All I need is evidence for this exigency to complete drafts in the timely fashion. I now understand some drafts without context can be problematic so I'm agreeing to do something about these for the reviewers (it makes sense). But then how is then some other draft with a clearer purpos a problem? -- Taku (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice... Now if the second person will be equally compliant (not necessary gender-less), we'll see happy end. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ironically, one is "retired, but still...", the other "drastically reducing involvement..." Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Taku, it's considered bad wiki form to assign a gender pronoun to an editor who hasn't indicated what pronoun they prefer. That's why "They" is (as I understand it) the preferred identifier. Your 10 to 20 drafts may not be the problem but they're the camel's nose in the tent. If you want 10 to 20 drafts, what prevents annother editor asking for their 10 to 20 drafts because you got yours. The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. Hasteur (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about the last part. Do you mean to say the abandoned drafts (in fact not even abandoned....) now need to be deleted? There is no such consensus. And whenever I asked for the consensus you go silent. Can we have evidence-based discussion? You admit my drafts are not problems. Can you now agree that there is no community consensus that abandoned drafts need to be deleted? By the way, this is unrelated to the G13 RfC since the expansion, which I support, is about streamlining the deletion process not about changing the inclusion criteria for the draftspace. -- Taku (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Only because every time I point at consensus (which admins have endorsed) you say it's not consensus. I have better chances trying to convince a rock. Hasteur (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Because the "consensus" exists only in your fantasy land, like a faster-than-light particle exists only in a theory (I'm pretty sure about this). You need to provide actual evidence of consensus in the form of RfC. -- Taku (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Cyclic cover

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Additional input is needed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Cyclic cover. -- Taku (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Geometry of algebraic curves and multiplicity theory

I have proposed that these two draft pages be moved back to the draftspace. Participations are welcome at Talk:Geometry of an algebraic curve and Talk:multiplicity theory. -- Taku (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, Multiplicity theory is acceptable for main space, while Geometry of an algebraic curve should be moved back to draft space. I did a little copy-editing and reference work on Multiplicity theory, and now it reads to me like any other mathematics stub (i.e., impenetrable to outsiders, perhaps somewhat useful for specialists). As for Geometry of an algebraic curve, that article lacks a lede, has turns of phrase like a textbook, repeatedly meanders into the void, makes unsupported value judgments ("difficult theorem", "imperative"), lacks inline citations, has no overall sense of pedagogical progression or organization, and needs recategorization. It should not be presented to the world as an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. The deficcencies in Geometry of an algebraic curve can be corrected via normal editing. It may take a while, but there is no reason why it should be clawed back to draft space where beneficial tools such as Categorization and maintenance tags can help it are required to be disabled. Hasteur (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft proposal

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Suggestion_for_a_compromise for a proposal I've made concerning math-related drafts. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

For the record, this (storing drafts in the project subpage) seems to work; as long as there is no objection among the project members. -- Taku (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

What are the benefits for WP?

With some sadness I notice how two (for the time being) eager janitors (Hasteur, Legacypac) insist on tidying up a list about WP in one and only one sequence of its items, exactly according to their vision of virtual damage done to the holy project, thereby annoying TakuyaMurata, provoking continuous adversaries.

As I see this, there are no strong involvements beside these three, perhaps even a bit of denying the damage, which is claimed by the two, if they would not succeed, and a bit of difference in valuating the drafts/stubs under conflict.

In my valuation, far too many potential contributors, capable of delivering substantial contributions to WP, have been driven away by such unchallenged bureaucracy, meanwhile.

Is there no way to calm down this fruitless clearing a list? Shouldn't the community, the consensus of which is challengedly claimed, voice itself in some stronger perceivable manner? Purgy (talk) 10:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"One thing that's obvious to me is that neither side is 100% wrong, and neither side is 100% right. And, equally, nether side is ever going to convince the other to change their opinion." (RoySmith 22:57, 25 August 2017, quoted from here). I feel alike. If I were a dictator, I would ban both sides for a week. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not like that. All you need to do is look at Taku's talkpage back to June 2016 esp to see his strange obsession with keeping his notes in Draft - amd no one dare touch them. Look up one thread to see him trying to move pages from mainspace back to his sacred Draft space. He keeps trying to change the rules, claims to not understand plain english, to ban people who touch his draft and overtrn community decisions in various ways. What gives? It's a war for him. Legacypac (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Tsirel and Purgy. From the point of view of Wikipedia, the true questions are

• Are the subjects of these drafts worth for an article? In most case, and possibly in all case, the answer is yes
• Are the subjects covered in the main space. In most case, and possibly in all case, the answer is no
• Are the drafts ready for the main space? The answer is clearly no
• Is the deletion of these drafts the right way for covering these subjects? Certainly not

This illustrates the classical problem of the math. project: there are many subjects that should be covered and are not, and we lack of competent editors for covering them. The competent editors that we have have not enough time for covering these subjects. Spending time of competent editors for such administrative discussions is the wrong way for solving these problems. Harassing one of the few competent mathematical editors, as it is done, is certainly not a good way for improving the mathematical content of Wikipedia, and may only result in decreasing the number of competent mathematical editors. Thus Hasteur and Legacypac behavior is disruptive as spending time of competent mathematical editors without any benefit for WP. D.Lazard (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@D.Lazard:HINT: they are not interested in [possible libel removed by Purgy (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)] the encyclopedia but a [possible libel removed by Purgy (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)] old pages. -- Taku (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the categorization of being dictatorial and intentionally trying to stop. Taku has had multiple opportunities (May of 2016, June of this year through current) to put their volunteer efforts into actually fixing the pages. Instead Taku spends time obstructing any request that starts fixing the issues with their pages. As has been said multiple times, all it takes is 1 edit to get the page off the "not edited in over 6 months" and I go away until it becomes not-edited in 6 months again. At it currently stands there's pages that haven't had a single edit in 2 years and I'm trying to be impartial so I'm working from "page with the oldest last edit to newest" i.e. Pages that were edited over 2 years ago and working forward. If taku made one single edit I'd probably go away for a year simply because there's a great many other pages to clean up. I would also note that Taku is the only editor who has objected to their pages being evaluated and resolved. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: I'm a bit confused here. Are seriously suggesting that some editor is required to do (pseudo) edit every 6 months on draft articles in his user space, so that he doesn't get bothered by you or some user space clean up crew? And you think that TakuyaMurata is the only one objected to this?--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: You are confused and misunderstood. CSD:G13 allows for all pages in Draft namespace and pages that are tagged with the {{AFC submission}} template to be nominated for speedy deletion if they have not been edited for at least 6 months. Taku's pages were discovered through User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report which lists all pages in draft namespace that do not have a AFC template on them that are at least 6 months unedited. I am working that report from the oldest edit moving forward to newest edit. Every other editor who has had pages on that list has given the go ahead to delete them or has not made any objection. TakuyaMurata on the other hand has spent nearly one thousand bytes defending their right to keep these while not making one single byte of improvement to the pages. One pseudeo edit every 6 months resets the clock on the pages, however if it's discovered that the clock is being disruptively being reset every 5 months then we can look at addressing those pages through more involved mechanisms such as "Merge and Redirect", Redirect without merge, MFD, or numerous other mechanisms. Taku has a couple options: Take the pages back to their userspace, Work on the page and let other editors work on it as well, Move the page to mainspace and improve it, Delete the page. Hasteur (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

We are discussing Draft space. Taku refuses to use his userspace for them. At 6 months unedited the pages are subject to G13 deletion. That is true for all of Draftspace now. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

So here we are once more at the opening question. The self-decreed sanitation engineers insist to refuse any balancing of benefits for WP, because of a "fiat iusticia, pereat mundus". Instead of questioning their relentless perseverance in enforcing their mostly self-imposed targets, or, at least, referring to their commenting on the suggestion by RoySmith below, they enforce and enforce again their brine of bureaucracy, used as a repellent for valuable WP-editors and as a lure for the unproductive enforcers of rules, not even pondering the negligibility of efforts to maintain stale drafts (obviously, they are not "stale", just unedited), thereby upholding questionable rules to a degree, representing blasphemy against all reasonableness: dummy-edits every 6 month, advisably with artificial random spread. OMG!—Topic ban for sanitizing WP for these engineers! Purgy (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTWEBHOST is policy. The purpose of that policy is to encourage everyone to regard Wikipedia as an encyclopedia where everything is done for the ultimate benefit of the encyclopedia. There would be no problem, for example, if all the drafts in question were put in a single page with a level-two heading replacing each draft title. This project would then have an easily accessible list of topics that could be quickly browsed and improved with the aim of developing encyclopedic articles. However, keeping one-line drafts because they concern mathematics is not reasonable because there is no practical way they can be stored indefinitely without encouraging others to indefinitely store less scholarly material (non-notable WP:PORN actors, for example). Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

So, I see another creative idea here: to keep the drafts on the project space, but combined into a single page. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I know that with current PC-guidelines I have to apologize for perceiving the mentioning of WP:PORN in immediate context with MATHEMATICS as a serious affront, even when mediated as less scholarly, but I insist on perceiving this way. I would not raise a single objection against hounding stale porn drafts, but I strongly object to stalk drafts with agreed upon scientific potential, obviously being under attention, just because of appearing at a particular place in some list for inappropriate measurements, taken by professionally incompetent cleaning personel. Furthermore, I cannot see any webhosting in storing the drafts, defended by Taku. I claim that the most page views of these drafts are caused by these janitors and their employed bots, so no essential web hosting takes place. There is no problem in the status quo, if it were not for these narrowly focused bureaucrats. Purgy (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia works well due to its community. However, that community shifts over time. If NOTWEBHOST is eroded so one-line drafts on a "good" topic are stored indefinitely, other projects would naturally want similar storage facilities. The damage (apart from the inability to ever find anything useful in the ocean of fragmentary ideas) would be that the community would become more dominated by those who regard Wikipedia as just another website where the rules of the 'net apply—those who complain the loudest are able to drive away the meek, and they can store anything they like. My concern is to maintain the integrity of NOTWEBHOST by insisting that everything has a plausible purpose for building articles. I would be happy to integrate all the drafts in question into a single page, and people could evaluate the result. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Not worth to integrate the drafts before the community decision to go this way. And nothing to evaluate; everyone can easily imagine the result. I, for one, am ready to take a half of the routine work of such "integration". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I take affront to being called "professionally incompetent" and the suggestion that there is "agreed upon scientific potential" for contentless pages on very obscure topics. I could create dozens of blank pages on real estate and business topics and then defend them as notable forever, but that would be disruptive and pointless Legacypac (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The affront is caused by Purgy, not by the WikiprojectMath. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it was caused by Johnuniq's unnecessarily incendiary comparison to porn, actually. —David Eppstein (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac, I am sorry for not having been sufficiently verbose about the intended meaning of "professional incompetence", but I hope, that confessing my personal "professional incompetence" on many matters of "real estate and business topics" makes it bearable for you to be coined as "professionally incompetent" in math, especially since you insist on judging certain drafts on math as being on "very obscure topics". For a more professional judgment of the drafts, please, consult the professional contributions in the widespread draft-hunt, not only about the drafts themselves, but also about the questioned editor. I would request your "dozens of blank pages" to be judged by professionals in the field of "real estate and business topics", and not by volunteering janitors. One has to live with one's incompetences, taking affront for these being noted generates a wrong self-esteem and is pointless. Purgy (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously I did not compare math drafts with porn. It's just that I spend too much time hanging around noticeboards and am well aware of how advocacy groups sometimes operate (in case there is any doubt, WikiProject Mathematics is not an advocacy group). What editors here regard as obviously worth keeping would apply for different pages to editors in every other wikiproject. The community cannot decide to indefinitely keep math drafts but delete pages from other projects. Johnuniq (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

(I'm not offended by porn; porn producers can be as professional as math professors, if not esteemed.) I don't think NOTWEBHOST is applicable here. If that is the issue, the location of the draft pages doesn't matter nor if they are in a single page. -- Taku (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A single page like User:TakuyaMurata/DraftsUser:Johnuniq/TakuyaMurata's single page draftpage is likely to get worked on occasionally and therefore will not fall stale. Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There are many stale pages in the mainspace. Similarly, "stale" itself isn't an issue; it just happens that there are many stale problematic drafts. Many blacks are criminals; doesn't mean all black are criminals. -- Taku (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

That Purgy cannot see the difference between Mathematics, Real estate, porn performers, Pokemon, or anything similar suggests a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problem... It's not Mathematics pages that I and others are trying to address, It's not Taku's pages that I and others are trying to address, it is pages that have lain dormant for two years that have been brought to an appropriate wikiproject twice (May 2016, June 2017) in which there seemed to be a reasonable argument for Taku to take action on these pages either by returning them back to Taku's userspace or by performing a single edit. That these requests for feedback get bogged down in needless nitpicking ("This topic isn't exactly what a mainspace page describes and it's not entirely the page") and plays for more time (see Taku's multiple requests for delay, filing pointy RFCs, filing pointy RMs, filing pointy DRVs, etc). My AGF is 100% spent on Taku's pages, but I still attempt to do the right thing with respect to any page that is in Draft namespace that has not been edited for at least 6 months. I come to the page, consider if it has a reasonable chance in mainspace, promote it if it is. If not, I see if there is a mainspace page (or subsection of a page) that could be a good target for a redirect. If the page's author decides they want to merge content from the redirected page (because I did not file for deletion) they can go back to the history and merge over the useful content. If there doesn't seem to be any mainspace content, I file for G13 because it meets the criteria. Deletion is the last resort. Hasteur (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Zero-stripping MR identifiers

I've noticed that quite a few MR identifiers have leading zeros. For example, in 128 (number), we have

• Sprague, R. (1948), "Über Zerlegungen in ungleiche Quadratzahlen", Math. Z., 51 (3): 289–290, doi:10.1007/BF01181594, MR 0027285

I don't see the point in those leading 0s, especially since if you follow MR0027285, you get taken to the same place as MR27285, and when you land on that page, you are shown 'MR27285' not 'MR0027285'. So it seems that per principle of least astonishment, we should not be including those leading zeros. There are a few solutions to this

• a) Unleash a bot to strip leading zeros [would affect roughly 4000 pages].
• b) Have {{citation}}/{{MR}} templates silently strip the leading 0s. ({{MR|0027285}} to render as {{MR|27285}})
• c) Do both a+b.
• d) Have {{citation}}/{{MR}} 0-pad MR identifiers so they display the leading zeros when they have been stripped. ({{MR|27285}} to render as {{MR|0027285}})

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Both links go to the same place, but the title shown on MathSciNet is "MR0027285 (10,283d)" with the zeros, so it appears that MathSciNet believes that the version with the zeros is the canonical version, rather than the version without. Note: I am not looking at the MR "Relay Station" shown to users without a subscription, I am looking at actual MathSciNet as most people who use MathSciNet would, to see the review. Similarly, when I search MathSciNet for "Turing, A*" by author, the results list includes links with zeros, such as MR0055785 As long as the actual MathSciNet adds the zeros when they are omitted, and shows them by default, I don't think we should make a lot of edits here to remove them from our links. I think you have just found a quirk in the "Relay Station" script. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where you see those zeros. This is what I see [12]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is the "Relay Station" as it says at the top. That is the "free" version that only shows the bibliographical info. Try using regular MathSciNet as you do to read the reviews. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have access to MathSciNet. The question remains though. Should we strip 0s, or should we pad with 0s? The landing page for most people will have the stripped version. No idea what the landing page is if you have a subscription. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If you don't have access to MathSciNet, I think it would be a better idea to leave maintenance of MathSciNet links to those who do and who use it routinely. Here is a screenshot [13]. As to the question, I do not think any action is of enough importance to be worth making any edits to the wiki. I would trust the editors who enter MR links to know what they are doing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

We can have this discussion without your condescending remarks about the lowly peasants without MathSciNet access. Again, I ask the question, should the zeros be stripped from MR identifiers, or should MR identifiers be padded with 0s. This can be done by simply updating the templates themselves. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Carl, the zeros do appear in the actual MathSciNet listings, but you can look up a review by MR number with or without the leading zeros. If MathSciNet is being cavalier about these leading zeros, I don't see why we should do anything about it.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The MR access number for their database is defined as a 7 digit number; see for instance, the Sept 22, 2003 entry in [14]. However, MatSciNet allows for shorter numbers and those are left zero-padded as necessary. It's probably more correct to use the canonical 7-digit format, but in practice most search engines can likely handle the short format. --Mark viking (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The zeros should not be stripped. The MR number is a seven digit number, including the leading zeros. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

So let's pad to 7 digits and present the canonical identifier then? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If they must be normalized, I think that would be a better choice than zero-stripping. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't see any strong reason why they must be normalized. Leaving thing as-is seems like a reasonable choice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Biquaternion

Could do with a third opinion at Talk:Biquaternion, whether a source/sources Theor-phys wants to add are appropriate or not.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone with a track record of a couple of DOIs publish his/her own (?) PhD thesis (along with a video) on WP? This is possible (but not definite) self-promotion. The only account activity is this. YohanN7 (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

ISO 4 redirects help!

{{Infobox journal}} now features ISO 4 redirect detection to help with the creation and maintenance of these redirects, and will populate Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects. ISO 4 redirects help readers find journal articles based on their official ISO abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys. A → Journal of Physics A), and also help with compilations like WP:JCW and WP:JCW/TAR. The category is populated by the |abbreviation= parameter of {{Infobox journal}}. If you're interested in creating missing ISO 4 redirects:

• Load up an article from the category (or only check for e.g. Mathematics journals).
• One or more maintenance templates should be at the top of page, with links to create the relevant redirects and verify the abbreviations.
• VERIFY THAT THE ABBREVIATION IN |abbreviation= IS CORRECT FIRST

• There are links in the maintenance templates to facilitate this. See full detailed instructions at Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects.
• |abbreviation= should contain dotted, title cased versions of the abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys., not J Phys or J. phys.). Also verify that the dots are appropriate.
• If you cannot determine the correct abbreviation, or aren't sure, leave a message at WT:JOURNALS and someone will help you.

• Use the link in the maintenance template to create the redirects and automatically tag them with {{R from ISO 4}}.
• WP:NULL/WP:PURGE the original article to remove the maintenance templates.

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Marshall–Olkin exponential distribution

Marshall–Olkin exponential distribution could certainly use work. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Unassessed fields in Talk:Valentine_Joseph

Hello, please could someone assess the missing fields for this article. Best regards - Heptanitrocubane (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sep 2017

Spring oscillation

A new article titled Spring oscillation is something of a mess at this point. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Multi-objective linear programming

Input from WikiProject Mathematics members regarding the suitability of Draft:Multi-objective linear programming for article space would be appreciated. Several Articles for creation reviewers have suggested that the contents be merged to Multi-objective optimization, but the draft's author, Giznej, believes it would be better to have two articles. Your input would be helpful in reaching consensus. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

More eyes needed

Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, father of algebraic geometry - really??? --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

List of mathematics competitions

Hello, folks. Last year, I proposed that the listing in the above-named article be drastically reduced, by removing all competitions that haven't been shown to be notable. That proposal is at Talk:List of mathematics competitions#Indiscriminate list. No comments were received. I'm prepared to take action now on this, but will be happy to receive comments from this WikiProject before doing so. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please go ahead. None of the sources listed in the footnotes there look particularly significant or worthwhile, so my suggestion would be to keep all of and only the bluelinked entries. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Lobachevsky integral formula

Lobachevsky integral formula might bear examination. Or might not? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Gaussian integer

An edit war seems start at Gaussian integer. See also Talk:Gaussian integer. Other opinions are strongly needed. D.Lazard (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Contravariant and Covariant Vectors

I have made a couple of entries on the talk page, but nobody seems interested and there has not been much article edit activity for a while. Could somebody have a look at the article and assess whether it needs attention. My opinion is that it could benefit from a thorough rewrite. The content is good, but wordy and disorganised, and the notation slightly distracting. I am prepared to put in some effort, but I don't want to stir up a hornets nest.Foucault (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You mean Covariance and contravariance of vectors. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Thankyou. I wrote this as an afterthought, when I was about to go to bed - 230am.Foucault (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: I have reverted the edit and left a message at the article page. - DVdm (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Geometry of an algebraic curve

I hope someone has an idea for what to do with this page. It reads like the backs of several envelopes. The title does not appear to be suitable (the material is much more narrow and esoteric than the title suggests, IMO); but before a better title can be chosen, the content needs clarification. XOR'easter (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn’t really seem like an article on anything, just a collection of snippets on some topic, not necessarily the topic given by the title which seems too vague. I see this was raised on the talk page but was rejected with a "so fix it" argument, but with no proposal how it could actually be fixed and I don’t think it can be. AfD perhaps?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLAR to algebraic geometry, maybe? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. The page history is still there for anyone who thinks they can do something with it. But as-is better a redirect until that happens.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A redirect to algebraic geometry sounds good to me. XOR'easter (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Move back to the draftspace: I still think moving it back to the draftspace makes the most sense. There, it should be possible to work out what materials should belong to the draft with the current title. The error was to move it to the mainspace. The redirect makes little sense since it doesn't lead anywhere (i.e., people cannot work on it.) -- Taku (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

About the title. "Geometry" is there to compare it to arithmetic of algebraic curves, another important topic. -- Taku (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with redirecting to algebraic geometry: almost everything in the article could be merged into Algebraic curve, and "Geometry of algebraic curves" refers clearly to algebraic curves, the first word being somehow a pleonasm. Thus I'll be bold and modify the redirect. D.Lazard (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose back to draft space: The move was already debated. I would note that this would not be the first, second, third, or fourth time that Taku has tried to leverage this back into draft space to try and escape generally accepted operating procedures. IF the page can be improved, it can be done as a subsection of a larger article until such time that WP:SPINOFF becomes a useful solution to the parent article having too much content. Hasteur (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems clear from the above that the move of the draft page to the mainspace didn't make sense. So the obvious solution is to undo that. -- Taku (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the WP:TALK guideline discourage interleaving?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

X–Y–Z matrix

Is X–Y–Z matrix notable? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't tell whether they really want to be talking about tensors or multidimensional arrays, but either way we have better material on the same subject. I don't think this article is a useful addition. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

From the grid mention, I suspect they are talking about multidimensional arrays. But the name is uncommon as far as I can tell. and the name ovelaps with transformation matrices to XYZ color space.It may not even be worth a redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd say to redirect it to multidimensional array, but I'm not sure it's a sufficiently common search term to make that worthwhile. XOR'easter (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Maass wave forms

Someone (with a breathtakingly extensive deficiency of TeX skill) created an article titled Maass wave forms. I tried to move it to the singular, Maass wave form, and found that that was already a redirect to Maass cusp form. So I deleted the redirect and moved it. Should this new article, now titled Maass wave form, be merged with Maass cusp form? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Why not? According to "Maass cusp form", these are two names of the same notion. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Calculators and software in external links

I tend to be a bit fussy with external links and I see a lot of calculators in elementary articles (which I tend to remove) and software, either working programs or code, in CS articles (which I tend to leave alone hoping that someone else will deal with it). My feeling is that these things are not in the spirit of proper external links and they can usually be snagged on the basis of not being reliable sources. However, it would be nice (I think) if there was an explicit point addressing this issue on the list at WP:ELNO. Before proposing anything to a wider audience I thought that I would first like to gather the reactions of the members of this project, since it would affect us the most. If an outright ban is not in order then maybe some guidelines as to what would be acceptable could be given. Thanks for your consideration. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this proposition. However, what is said about calculators can also be said of many external links to courses or mathematical explanations. These external links generally fall under item 11 (Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites) of WP:ELNO, but may also considered as aimed to promote their authors. Therefore I generally leave to the authors of the links the choice of the relevant item(s) by providing the edit summary "per WP:ELNO". Nevertheless an item on calculators and elementary courses would be useful. D.Lazard (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I mean no insult to you. The idea that including math or CS theory in articles is acceptable, but that concrete instantiatons of the theory/algorthms, such as calculators and source code, are so far beneath us that they do not even merit an external link, however, strikes me as elitist. Especially in cases of source code links, these can be considered further development of the topic and a good alternative to trying to add source code directly to the article. Some encyclopedic books, like The Algorithm Design Manual, are valuable in part for thier curated lists of external links to source codes. Any of those source codes I would have no problem with externally linking. I think a proposal like this should emphasize whether the linked web site or source code is relaible or at least has been discussed/reviewed by third parties, rather than whether the content is theoretical or applied. --Mark viking (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure how you are reading a theoretical vs. applied divide from the above comments. I am no stranger to coding and D.Lazard is certainly not either. Maybe I did not make myself clear enough, but my issue with calculators and code not being in the spirit of external links is precisely because we can not verify their reliability in any easy manner. There is absolutely nothing wrong with programs or code that have been properly vetted and they would make fine external links. However, I haven't seen this kind of vetting occur for the programs being placed on our pages, and that is what has me concerned.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. I interpreted your first two sentences in the original posting as that you were singling out and against all calculators and code in external links, in principle. With your clarification, I think we are in agreement that it is the reliability that is important for EL, not whether the content is a calculator, source code, tutorials, lecture notes, etc. --Mark viking (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I tend to dislike calculators not because they are inaccurate (although that is also an issue) but because they don't add much to reader understanding of the topic (ELNO #1 — often they are just simple formulas that anyone could plug into a claculator), are typically very spammy (ELNO #5), have unknown provenance and little editorial control of their methods (ELNO #11) and often (especially for number-theoretic calculations) have significant limitations in the range of numbers that they can be used for (ELNO #16). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Smooth projective plane

The article titled Smooth projective plane needs work. I found it as an orphan and I created two links to it in the "See also" sections of Projective plane and Real projective plane. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Regretfully, these experts (main contributors) do not collaborate further. I wrote a number of questions there, but who can answer? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

A quote from myself (relevant or not): "if the only editor that wish and can to describe a topic here is the author, then probably the topic is not worth to be described here". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page, I only helped to Wikify the page and this out of respect for the authors of the main reference whom I know only by reputation. The article does read like a research paper (or summary of one) rather than an article on a topic. Perhaps we should put clarification tags, corresponding to your questions, in the article and then PROD the whole thing in hopes of getting some attention to these issues.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Redirect for Additive Combinatorics

The way this redirect is set-up doesn't really make sense, even though there is more info about the subject on the additive number theory page the redirect points to Arithmetic combinatorics. In fact, there is a loop formed by clicking on the words "additive combinatorics". On the Arithmetic combinatorics page it takes you to Additive number theory, on the Additive number theory page it takes you to Arithmetic combinatorics. I don't believe this should be the case, links for a given topic should always direct readers to the same page, in my mind. I don't have enough experience in the area to say where this information should actually be or which is right, but I do believe it should be straightened out. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. This a redirect from 2008 and I suspect the arithmetics combinatorics article was probably the best target at the time. But I agree the section in additive number theory is in better shape, so I have redirected to Additive number theory#Additive combinatorics. --Mark viking (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Please Review my Article

I wrote an article on geometric mixed motives and I would like to have a mathematician on this site to review it. It was previously revoked by a non-mathematician, but their criterion for revoking the article is invalid: the sources I provided are notable. In addition, I made sure to cite other articles on wikipedia and gave detailed explanations on the page. Any help is appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.193.229 (talk • contribs)

Maybe these could help: "Geometric Mixed-Motives". Apparently not a huge subject, but the chances of approval increase considerably if you cite peer-reviewed publications. The sources you gave are, by definition, not notable or reliable. This has nothing to do with the meaning of the terms in the real world. YohanN7 (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is the handbook of K-theory or the journal of K-theory not notable? One is published through Springer and the other is a peer-reviewed journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.89 (talk • contribs)

I have answered in the draft's talk page. D.Lazard (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

These are notable, however, up until yesterday they were so poorly referenced that this fact was hidden. You have to realize that in writing for an encyclopedia you can not assume that readers and even editors are going to be familiar with the perfectly good sources in your subfield. The publication data is needed to establish that these sources have been vetted by the mathematical community–just providing the links to these sources does not give that information. As I looked over your article I also noticed another problem that you will have. There are no in-line citations. The sources that you provide are meant to support the statements made in the article. Without the in-line links to the sources (including page numbers) the statements you make can not be verified by a reader and that is the heart of what Wikipedia is all about. If you keep at it this article will eventually be in good enough shape to be accepted. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The content has now been merged into Motive (algebraic geometry). XOR'easter (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge Request

I think the Sheaf of logarithmic differential forms article should be merged into the Log structure or Logarithmic form page. What are people's thoughts? Username6330 (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Umm, why? The notion of log differential forms makes sense and is still useful outside log geometry. I do agree to add some discussion how to understand this notion from the log-point-of-view. -- Taku (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Logarithmic form is literally the same topic as Logarithmic form. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was questioning the merger with log structure (replace "why" -> "why log structure"). The two articles Sheaf of logarithmic differential forms and logarithmic form are on the same topic, obviously, and should thus be merged. -- Taku (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion, possibly with wider implications

See Talk:Upper and lower bounds#Requested move 12 September 2017. There seems to be further inconsistency in article naming – when the title should have both a notion and its dual versus just one of them. I'm also not sure how it fits in with WP:AND, so I thought I'd see if anyone else had thoughts (the discussion there seems to have stalled). --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist problem

Strangely, this day my watchlist page says "No changes during the given period match these criteria." which is surely wrong. Is it my personal problem? Do you see your watchlist normally? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, it appears to be because of "Days to show in watchlist: 0" in my preferences->watchlist. I have no idea why this value was reset to 0, but anyway, I restored it. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I suspect the recent "improvement" on Watchlist filtering and display to be a possible cause for any trouble with "watchlist" you mention. OMG, what a remarkably sensible and fast and handy and ... user interface. Luckily I found the box where to check this off. Purgy (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Complex analysis template up for deletion

For those that don't follow TfD, I note that Template:Complex analysis sidebar is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_27#Template:Complex_analysis_sidebar. It is up for deletion in part because this nav template is unused. Did it fall through the cracks and would be useful to add to complex analysis articles? Or is there a consenus to avoid such nav sidebars in this project? Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know a reason not to use it. I suspect the only reason it's not used is lack of widespread awareness of its existence, and the reason for the lack of widepread awareness is that it's not used. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, it's pretty new. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I boldly added the template under "See also" to the page Complex analysis. It is used now under its title, at least; so please, in case you are interested, check, if it disturbs or helps. Purgy (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added it to a few more pages. XOR'easter (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NAV suggests displaying sidebars more prominently (like at the top). I'll go ahead and move them there for now then. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me. XOR'easter (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not know how these sidebars display on mobiles, and how easy some get annoyed by being molested with links they are not interested in, at least not at the moment. That's, and because I do not care much for WP:MOS, why I put it under "See also", where unsolicited links fit best, imho. But I do not really mind any place, or if employed at all. BTW, I aligned the pics with the sidebar. Purgy (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Navboxes and sidebars (at least when they are built using the proper templates like {{navbox}} or {{sidebar}}) don't get displayed on mobile devices. – Uanfala 20:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The navigation bar is not a new idea (see Template:Lie groups for a nice example). But this seems to need an improvement; I think it's too big (can be problematic in the mobile setup); this problem can be mitigated by the use of collapse. Also, the choice of the items looks strange (do we need a link to real number?) while some key theorems are missing, like uniformization theorem, Runge's approximation theorem and one-single-variable version of Cousin's first and second problems (Mittag-Leffler's theorem?). Finally, no need for the deletion. -- Taku (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Oct 2017

Someone wants to redirect Reciprocal rule to Chain rule

See Talk:Reciprocal_rule. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Redirect Help

Currently the dualizing complex for wikipedia directs to the Verdier duality page. This is partially correct since this could also redirect to the Coherent duality page. Can someone create a disambiguation page for these two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Username6330 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Has Erdős–Turán conjecture been solved?

Hello,

I am not a mathematician, but my friend is. The most current version of the Wikipedia article on Erdős–Turán conjecture states that it remains unsolved. Here is a published article written by my friend Dr. Martin Helm back in 1993, which might change this. I would love an expert comment on this. Thank you very much!

Best regards, Aleksandr — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocAZ (talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Your friend's paper is on the Erdős–Turán conjecture on additive bases, not the one you linked, the Erdős conjecture on arithmetic progressions. And it doesn't disprove the conjecture; it is about the tightness of a previous disproof by Erdős of a special case of the conjecture. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Ujin-X and vectors

• Ujin-X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Ujin-X (contributions) has been making a number of edits related to vectors, broadly construed; all of it has the taste of crankery (trying to get direction vector deleted, adding what looks like invented terminology to articles, etc.). Perhaps this could use a few more eyes. --JBL (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I have just nominated for deletion an article by this user, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverse vector (a prod would certainly not be successful, as this user is still active). D.Lazard (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

See also Talk:Cross product#Cross product does not exist. Seems Ujin-X has just rediscovered a number of basic results, then come up with names for them as if they were original, and thinks WP should be changed to match their esoteric findings.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Note his summary to this edit: In the theory of vectors, significant changes take place. A number of new terms have appeared (rectilinear vector, angular vector, inverse vector). These changes are related to the publication "Angular vectors in the theory of vectors" Wow... Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe also worth noting is that the editor's username is the same as the contact email on that publication, which I found surprising. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I suspected a WP:COI, this is a confirmation. D.Lazard (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear judges, I thank you for your attention to my person, but in Wikipedia I do not discuss myself, but the result of scientific achievement in the theory of vectors. I'm sorry to see that many of you, without bothering to read the article "Angular vectors in the theory of vectors", delete or misinterpret new terms and definitions.
All these terms (angular vector, rectilinear vector, inverse vector, vector division) have appeared, because in the existing theory of vectors there are a number of problems.
The angular vector has appeared, since Euclidean vectors (direction vectors) can not correctly display angular physical quantities (angular velocity, torque, etc.) in the coordinate system. A rotating ball can not have a straight rectilinear direction.
With the advent of the term angular vector, it becomes necessary to distinguish it from the Euclidean vector, so it is logical to call it rectilinear vector, it has always been that way.
The term inverse vector appeared in the process of solving a problem with a cross product of vectors, when one of them is represented as a unit divided by a vector. The most valuable thing in the inverse vector is not that it was invented, but the output of projection of the inverse vector on the coordinate axis. Thanks to them, it was possible to solve unsolvable problems in classical theoretical mechanics. This is shown in examples № 7 and 9. Using the cross product of vectors and the inverse vector, we essentially obtain vector division.
Dear mathematicians, I did not really want to create this work. I understood that she would force to review a lot of scientific works and cause a wave of indignation. But the truth is that science must be truthful, and all these discussions are aimed at a better understanding of mathematics, better modeling of physical quantities. On the understanding of the material by students, and not on memorizing an illogical theory.
You probably will have to accept the fact that the theory of vectors will change significantly. It has increased.
By removing new information, you can only slow it down a bit. But create on the English version will already be yourself. If I make new pages, then only in Ukrainian.Ujin-X (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, according to the rules of Wikipedia, we should be slow. Yes, we'll create such articles, if/when the new approach will enter textbooks, or/and be awarded, or/and widely used by others etc. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you can immediately delete and Draft:Angular vectorUjin-X (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

We already have Pseudovector. There I see: A number of quantities in physics behave as pseudovectors rather than polar vectors, including magnetic field and angular velocity. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated Draft:Angular vector for speedy deletion, per WP:CSD G7. D.Lazard (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

An offline app for Mathematics

Hello everyone,

The Kiwix people are working on an offline version of several Wikipedia subsets (based on this Foundation report). It basically would be like the Wikimed App (see here for the Android light version; iOS is in beta, DM me if interested), and the readership would likely be in the Global South (if Wikimed is any indication): people with little to no access to a decent internet connexion but who still would greatly benefit from our content.

What we do is take a snapshot at day D of all articles tagged by the project (minus Biographies) and package it into a compressed zim file that people can access anytime locally (ie once downloaded, no refresh needed). We also do a specific landing page that is more mobile-friendly, and that's when I need your quick input:

1. Would it be okay for you to have it as a subpage of the Wikiproject (e.g. WikiProject Mathematics/Offline)? Not that anyone should notice or care, but I'd rather notify & ask
2. Any breakdown of very top-level topics that you'd recommend? (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Open_Textbook_of_Medicine2 for what we're looking at in terms of simplicity) Usually people use the search function anyway, but a totally empty landing page isn't too useful either. Alternatively, if you guys use the Book: sorting, that can be helpful.

Thanks for your feedback! Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

For now let me only say that I have admired Kiwix for many years. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The list at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Mathematics is in fairly good shape as a starting point. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This is brilliant. Thank you. Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Pseudovector

The material in the first section of this article, pseudovector, that seems to try to pass for a definition is all handwaving. Can something more precise be added? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

One thing which is curious is Polar vector redirects to pseudovector even though it's precisely the opposite.--Salix alba (talk): 23:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Why curious? It seems that "polar vector" means "vector" in contexts where the terms "pseudovector" or "axial vector" are used, and is used only in these contexts. Only 10 WP articles use this term, and all but use "polar vector" in connexion with "pseudovector" or "axial vector". The last article, Vector notation defines a polar vector as a coordinate vector in polar coordinates. This seems a misnomer, and I'll insert a hatnote in this article. D.Lazard (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

What happened to "Collection (mathematics)"?

This leads to a redirect "Collection (mathematics)", ending in "Collection", but there is no phrase "math" to be found.

Did the deliberate undefinedness within mathematics of "collection" carry over to WP? I hope I did not miss something. Thanks for checking. Purgy (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This is an easy problem in binary search. The relevant edit is this one (from 2013). Since no one will ever put "collection (mathematics)" into the search bar and it is not linked from anywhere, I have trouble being very concerned about this. --JBL (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparently many people put collection (mathematics) into the search bar, as this redirect is viewed, in the average, once every day. The section "Mathematics" of Collection has been removed in 2013 by a user that has been blocked for sockpuppetry. This section deserve to be restored and I'll do that. D.Lazard (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Under no circumstances I intended to create any specific concern, only rarely I feel sufficiently competent to touch disambiguations, but in any case I am thankful for all of your caring, because now I can go on to safely link a collection, notated as an indexed family, with the least interference with the original text. For a given occurrence, I really wanted to know how a "collection" in math context is looked upon in WP, and -lo and behold- Collection (mathematics) was a suggestion, nowhere to be found. Purgy (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC notification

See Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi‎‎ § Request for comment: Should ethnicity of al-Khwarizmi appear in the lead? D.Lazard (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

call for abstracts

Posting this here since it would be great if someone could come along and talk about Wikipedia's mathematical culture.

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS (deadline: 30th June 2017)

ENABLING MATHEMATICAL CULTURES, University of Oxford, 5th-7th December 2017

This workshop celebrates the completion of the EPSRC-funded project “Social Machines of Mathematics”, led by Professor Ursula Martin at the University of Oxford. We will present research arising from the project, and bring together interested researchers who want to build upon and complement our work. We invite interested researchers from a broad range of fields, including: Computer Science, Philosophy, Sociology, History of Mathematics and Science, Argumentation theory, and Mathematics Education. Through such a diverse mix of disciplines we aim to foster new insights, perspectives and conversations around the theme of Enabling Mathematical Cultures.

Our intention is to build upon previous events in the “Mathematical Cultures” series. These conferences explored diverse topics concerning the socio-cultural, historical and philosophical aspects of mathematics. Our workshop will, likewise, explore the social nature of mathematical knowledge production, through analysis of historical and contemporary examples of mathematical practice. Our specific focus will be on how social, technological and conceptual tools are developed and transmitted, so as to enable participation in mathematics, as well as the sharing and construction of group knowledge in mathematics. In particular, we are interested in the way online mathematics, such as exhibited by the Polymath Projects, MathOverflow and the ArXiv, enable and affect the mathematical interactions and cultures.

We hereby invite the submission of abstracts of up to 500 words for papers to be presented in approximately 30 minutes (plus 10 minutes Q+A). The Enabling Mathematical Cultures workshop will have space on Days 2 and 3 of the meeting for a number of accepted talks addressing the themes of social machines of mathematics, mathematical collaboration, mathematical practices, ethnographic or sociological studies of mathematics, computer-assisted proving, and argumentation theory as applied in the mathematical realm. Please send your abstracts to Fenner.Tanswell@Gmail.com by the deadline of the 30th June 2017.

The event takes place in the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford on 5th, 6th and 7th December 2017, with a dinner on 5th December and an informal supper on 6th December.

The focus of Day 1 will be on success, failure and impact of foundational research with an emphasis on history and long term development. Days 2 and 3 will focus on studies of contemporary and prospective mathematical cultures from sociological, philosophical, educational and computational perspectives.

Confirmed speakers include: Andrew Aberdein, Michael Barany, Alan Bundy, Joe Corneli, Matthew Inglis, Lorenzo Lane, Ursula Martin, Dave Murray-Rust, Alison Pease and Fenner Tanswell.

Organising Committee: Ursula Martin, Joe Corneli, Lorenzo Lane, Fenner Tanswell, Sarah Baldwin, Brendan Larvor, Benedikt Loewe, Alison Pease

Further information will be added to the website at https://enablingmaths.wordpress.com

Previous "Mathematical Cultures" events can be found here: https://sites.google.com/site/mathematicalcultures/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arided (talk • contribs)

Does a Call for Papers belong here? If we allow, we'd be swamped by such calls as I get one a day. About each one would involve Wikipedians in one way or another. I suggest deleting.Limit-theorem (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red November contest open to all

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Lagrangian disambiguation help needed

Expert mathematical help is needed to disambiguate links to Lagrangian in the following articles:

• Skyrmion
• Accidental symmetry
• Generalized Noether's identity and non-classical Noether's conservation laws

Thanks! bd2412 T 18:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The article Lagrangian should not be a disambiguation page. The primary topic is Lagrangian mechanics. A separate Lagrangian (disambigation) page might be called for, but someone typing "Lagrangian" into the search bar (or linking to this term) will almost always mean the Lagrangian in the sense of Lagrangian mechanics. In any case, all uses of the term are closely related, suggesting further that disambiguation is not the proper way to handle this topic. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The third page, Generalized Noether's identity and non-classical Noether's conservation laws, is rather odd and WP:ESSAY/WP:OR-ish. XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

If Lagrangian is miscast as a disambiguation page, it should certainly be fixed. As for the latter page, is there a topic that is salvageable from that? bd2412 T 20:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I'm inclined to AfD it. The creator and chief contributor to that page has never worked on anything else; of the four sources, only two actually address the specific topic, and those two are papers which have had zero impact (the only citation for the older is the newer). It has the very strong feel of someone promoting their own, otherwise unrecognized, work. Plus, it just doesn't make sense. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In fact, it follows the (difficult) phrasing of one source rather slavishly: "such as displacement, strain, stress, Airy stress function" versus "each of the displacements, stresses and strains as well as Airy stress function", for example. If it's not the author promoting their own work, it's functionally indistinguishable from that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I PROD'ed it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal at Talk:Complex number

Should complex number be divided into eight articles? And if so, are there competent volunteers willing to write the resulting eight articles? Opine at Talk:Complex number#Proposal: multi-way split. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Move request

There is a contentious move request afoot at Talk:Tensor#Requested move 25 October 2017. Please opine there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

E6

There is a contentious discussion on Talk:E6 (mathematics) about illustrations that perhaps other users would like to weigh in on. --JBL (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on Science and Maths articles on Jimbo talk page.

There is a discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Science and math articles folowing an article Wikipedia’s Science Articles Are Elitist. People might like to contribute. --Salix alba (talk): 11:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is basically this: As long as content forking is disallowed, WP cannot provide textbook(s), nor popular science. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Content forks are indeed allowed, as most of Wikipedia:Content forking explains. Introduction to general relativity is a featured article demonstrating the situation. Thincat (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

These are strongly discouraged, however, and tend to violate WP:NOT. What tends to happen is that a single editor tendentiously creates one and then is sufficiently argumentative to prevent others from merging it back. In the end they should be merged together, however. The other issue is that there is a difference between topics such as general relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. which are covered even in freshman-level summary textbooks, and topics which are only covered in graduate or postgraduate level texts. For the latter kind of topic, it is virtually impossible to write a sourced article at an elementary level (assuming it is possible to write any article at an elementary level). — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Boris Tsirelson: I agree, although I think that there are broader reasons why we can't give a textbook. I think another issue is that, in order to write a "neutral" article, which many people can agree to, we have to avoid injecting our own perspective and vision into articles we write here. But that perspective and vision is exactly what would be necessary to give a good course on a topic. We aren't trying to give a course here, though, just a reference. Even co-authoring a book can be very difficult when the co-authors look at the same topic in different ways - co-authoring a book with hundreds of anonymous editors, some of whom may not really understand the topic, would be impossible. We can only manage here by keeping neutral. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. And for popular science, the problem is even harder. Every good popular science text is a very creative, very personal work of a talented author. An impersonal bunch of editors, mostly students, cannot produce it; and anyway, such an article cannot be sourced. Similarly to an exercise, it is destined to be either Original Research, or a Copyright Violation. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

One could use Wikiversity (WV). Yes, it is much less visited than WP. However, it is possible to provide a link from a WP article to a relevant WV article (if the WP community does not object, of course); this option is rarely used, but here is a recent example: the WP article "Representation theory of the Lorentz group" contains (in the end of the lead) a link to WV article "Representation theory of the Lorentz group". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Another option is, to submit an article to WikiJournal of Science. For example see "Space (mathematics)" accepted there. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

We're always going to get people who complain they can't understand maths or science articles. Euclid is supposed to have said to Ptolemy that there was no royal road to geometry and one of his first theorems has been referred to as the pons asinorum because some people just wouldn't get it. If they don't get that they are not going to be able to skim and understand the result of another two thousand years of study.

There is a bit of a problem though with articles being aimed a bit too high. I would say that at least the first half of an article should be accessible to someone who is interested and whose knowledge would put them about six months away from getting to the subject if they were going to study it. Dmcq (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I basically agree with Boris Tsirelson as well and the WMF has other projects for the textbook approach, namely Wikiversity and Wikibooks. Those can be used for that purpose and good pieces in Wikibooks and Wikiversity can be linked in the related WP articles.

Having said that however, I do think that some math articles tend to be unnecessarily complicated for wider audiences, in particular if they start off with overly generalized or abstract versions of a particular math topic. Imho math articles should aim for starting off its topic with the least abstract/least general treatment of subject that can commonly can be found in reputable literature and only after that move on to more abstract or generalized treatments of that subject. That assures that the first sentences of the lead as well as the first sections of article are readable and useful to larger audiences than just the "elite few".--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I find the complaints about the lead of the article complex number to be rather incomprehensible. I think there is an attitude that readers somehow expect too much from the lead of a mathematics article. They want everything to be made clear, yet when perfectly precise and clear language is used to explain the subject, they complain that it's too technical. They also want the whole article to happen in the lead.

Readers without familiarity with a subject in mathematics will no doubt feel that there must be a simpler way to express it. But, this is often not the case. For example, to say what a compact space is, we must at some point say "A topological space X is compact if, for every collection of open subsets of X whose union is all of X, there is a finite subcollection whose union is still X." This is not a very complicated idea, but many readers unaccustomed to such things will not want to go through the arduous work of attempting to read and understand the sentence. So, my conclusion is that readers who say that the lead of complex number is too abstract simply don't want to understand things.

I worry that if there is ultimately a push to make technical topics "understandable" to general readers, it will result in a general degradation of quality in our articles. Making technical topics understandable is not easy to do, and is one of the areas in which we've seen the Dunning-Kruger effect. Mathematics novices often try to improve articles by making them more palatable to general readers, but the effect is usually a vague, poorly written mess, and often is just wrong. (Even experts have a hard time saying something that is not wrong when they use "plain English" to express mathematical ideas.) Novices should be encouraged to summarize and cite sources. Pedagogical or introductory sources can be used to introduce a topic, provided those meet the same standards of reliability as the rest of our sources. But editors shouldn't be encouraged to deviate from the presentation of topics found in reliable sources, but that seems to be where things are headed.

So, I propose that we should gather together a collection of bad edits that we've seen through the years that were aimed at making things more accessible (but usually with the opposite effect). Here is one that I found in my edit history. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Another such attempt. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A quote from myself: "Well, this is a math article. Not recreational mathematics. Not a textbook. Not a pearl of popular science. To a reasonable extent, it does contain elements of these three genres." Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand there are (too) many articles that seem having been written for being understood only by experts. My favorite example is this one. Although I know well this subject, I needed some time for understanding that the previous first sentence was correct. Another example is this one (I compare the 2012 version with the present version because several editors have been involved). Again, one may clearly consider the 2012 version as elitist. IMO, this is not elitism but incompetence of some editors. D.Lazard (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sławomir  : as an example, the current version of "complex number" on Simple Wikipedia [15] manages in one lede to bring up normal numbers, to claim that complex numbers were invented (i.e. rather than discovered) and to claim that there is a "problem" with exponentiation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

CBM, the word "normal" is being used in its normal usage, to mean "typical, usual, what one is used to." Similarly, the claim that there is a "problem" is explained in the immediately following sentence, namely, it is referring to the problem of the algebraic unclosedness of the real numbers. The fact that we mathematicians assign meanings to words like "normal" does not mean that the cannot be used in other valid ways! Overall I think the simple wikipedia intro reads a bit stilted but is clear, covers a variety of important points, and is sufficiently technically accurate for an introduction of an encyclopedia article. --JBL (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

But complex numbers as just as "normal" in that sense as any other number. Imagine if I started an article with "New York is different than a normal city..." - that is not NPOV. Moreover, nobody writing an mathematical article should be aware that in that context the term "normal number" does have a specific meaning. The same NPOV issue happens with "problem" - this is the kind of writing that could be used in an expository article or popularization, or even in a textbook, but to use it here would go against the tone we are striving for as well as violating NPOV. This kind of thing is one reason why it is not as simple to write "clearly accessible" articles on Wikipedia as it would be on a personal blog. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This lede contains also the sentence "The complex number can also be written as a set (a, b)" ! D.Lazard (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No, your first sentence is (obviously) wrong and that's the point: to you and me, the complex numbers are normal. To the world in the year 1550 they were not normal, and to my calculus students in the year 2017 they are not normal. They really are genuinely more abstract than real numbers, which are in turn genuinely more abstract than rational numbers, which are in turn genuinely more abstract than positive integers, and it is completely ok for the first sentence of the article to be written in a way that makes them approachable for people who are more like my calculus students and less like me. The objection you are raising involving normal number makes no more sense than if I started tearing up the lead of normal number by invoking normal (geometry) (since the number line is geometric after all). Similarly, I really don't know what to make of your claim "this is the kind of writing that could be used in an expository article" -- in what world is an encyclopedia article not an expository article? It is indeed difficult to write clearly accessible articles when one imposes standards that forbid accessibility. This is not to say that there could not be some better alternative phrasings -- I would describe the introduction to the simple wikipedia article as "reasonably decent and very accessible" and I would describe the introduction to our article as "reasonably decent but not very accessible." (The simple version doesn't discuss the geometry as much but does a better job of the history; the basic algebraic issues are covered in both.) -JBL (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

By an "expository article" I mean something that could appear as an article in Mathematics Magazine, or a senior capstone paper, or perhaps something that could be in the "What is" series of the Notices of the AMS. Essentially, a non-research-level summary of a topic, with no claim of originality in its mathematics, meant to introduce someone to a new area. Our articles, in contrast, are primarily meant to be references, not to be the first place someone learns a topic. People can sometimes use our articles to learn about a new topic, but that is a secondary purpose at best. Analogy: reference texts such as the Handbook of Combinatorial Designs vs. textbooks on design theory, or the Handbook of Mathematical Logic vs. textbooks on logic. The handbooks, like Wikipedia, are intended to be references first, and so they also can be quite inaccessible to people who don't have enough background.

As for complex numbers not being "normal", that is exactly the kind of claim that we remove routinely because of NPOV. It's simply not possible, in an environment where everything can be tagged for originality and POV, for editors to use flowery language of that sort. This is one reason that many of our articles seem to have a dry, uninspired tone: because they are written not only by a committee, but by an anonymous committee who have to agree on the wording. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I am mystified by why you think the category "encyclopedia article" is in conflict with the description "a non-research-level summary of a topic, with no claim of originality in its mathematics, meant to introduce someone to a new area." The description seems to me to fit exactly what an encyclopedia should aspire to: a first place someone can go to learn about a topic, with pointers to references for those looking for more depth. Normal people (used to) own encyclopedias! Normal people do not own the Handbook of Combinatorial Designs. There is a place in the world for reference works suitable for people who are already expert in a field, but that place is not a general purpose encyclopedia. --JBL (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I do think that there is a difference between presenting a reference on a topic and presenting a textbook or expository essay. This difference is somewhat captured by the quote "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." from WP:NOT. Of course, people use Wikipedia for many purposes, and we make some concessions towards readers who have not seen the material before. I'm not arguing against that. But readers should also remember that our articles are not really intended to teach someone about a topic which they have no idea about. In some cases, it seems unreasonable to expect that this is possible, e.g. natural transformation — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

To add to this, I think that the matter is fairly conclusively settled at the policy level. WP:WEIGHT is to represent all viewpoints in a manner in proportion to the treatment in reliable sources. Reliable sources will certainly include some pedagogical sources, but generally should be sourced to standard academic literature, as these are the most reliable in the sciences. Our wording, likewise, must reflect what is in those sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, this has been a sobering conversation for me: I had always assumed that the perennial critics of the way math articles are written on wikipedia were simply underestimating the challenge of writing mathematics well for a lay audience. But apparently they are right: some of our contributors are actively opposed to writing mathematics well for a lay audience. This is sad. --JBL (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that anyone is opposed to the general concept of writing mathematics for a lay audience - it is vital for the general public to see many aspects of mathematics. But that doesn't mean that the mission of Wikipedia is to write articles about advanced mathematical topics (e.g. natural transformation) for a lay audience. Some of our core policies, such as WP:V, WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV, require us to stay very close to existing sources, rather than writing our our personal interpretations and novel explanations. So, rather than underestimating the difficulty of writing for a lay audience, I think that many editors are well aware of that difficulty and edit accordingly. If anything, I think that editors sometimes overestimate the possibility of making articles on less-advanced subjects like complex number more clear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

While I don't have much to add to this particular debate, I'm sorry to hear that my owning a copy of the Handbook means I'm not a normal person . Be that as it may, I just wanted to point out that I have just made some edits to the simple Wikipedia page that makes part of this discussion moot. A better choice of terms in that article can remove some of the difficulties that have been noted. However, I did have to think long and hard about replacements that stayed within the limits of that project and I am not completely satisfied with the result. Portions of that page still jar my mathematical sensibilities, but I am trying to overlook those reactions. Although an advocate of mellower introductions to math articles, I don't see how I could keep this up in my more typical editing. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

. Your edits to that article are excellent. --JBL (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Another example for Sławomir Biały's collection, which I have just fixed: [16]. For the record, I have done this edit after being told that a previous revert was wrong: although this article is intended for a public of beginners in mathematics, I was confused by the previous content of this section. D.Lazard (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I don't have much to add to the above. But one aspect that exasperates the situation is that we are generally not allowed to make simplifying assumptions. For example, in algebraic geometry, sometimes, one can give simple definitions if one knows a variety is a quasi-projective variety. Similarly some expositions become obscure or obtuse because we are not assuming the base field has characteristic zero. If Wikipedia's mission is to provide learning materials, it might be a good idea to avoid some technicalities by making simplifying assumptions. Since our concerns here are to provide references, I don't know what can be done to the view that pedagogy and accessibility are secondary to presenting precise facts. -- Taku (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I do know what to do: for pedagogy and accessibility use Wikiversity and Wikijournal (as I suggested above). But alas, I guess, you all do not like Wikiversity. It is indeed in a very bad state – just because you all do not participate. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, Wiki seems to be a bad medium for writing textbooks or preparing learning materials. One reason I have not see mentioned is the tradinal teaching style doesn't mesh with collaboration: the great courses and textbooks are about personal touches and visions. Personally I don't know a textbook I like that has multiple authors. Of course, this can also mean "we're teaching math wrong!" I'm a bit irritated by a defeatist attitude of some editors (e.g., that of Professor S.B.) that the only traditional way to write math is the only way. Wikipedia is supposed to democratize knowledge; I think the root of the complain is that many of our math articles are failing this.

I know I know content forks are supposed to be "bad thing". Perhaps this policy needs to be revised; it is posssible that, given an inherent drive to generalization and abstraction, math articles are types of articles that benefit from content forks. -- Taku (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

About "courses and textbooks are personal" I agree, completely. About content forks, no, no chance to weaken this policy here; this is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia; this is why WP is much more coherent and successful than other wikis; no one will make an exception for mathematics. About "Wiki is a bad medium for textbooks" I disagree; probably you mean "Wikipedia", not "wiki" in general. If indeed "math articles benefit from content forks", then these should be on other wikis that welcome content forks. Wikiversity is flooded with very bad texts, which seems to be inescapable when content forks and original research are welcome, but really is not! For an escape see WikiJournal: WikiJournal of Science (again). For example see "Space (mathematics)" accepted there. By the way v:WikiJournal of Medicine succeeds; we could, too. On WikiJournal in general see m:WikiJournal User Group. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

To continue on "content forks", we do actually have de fact content forks in math articles in a way: mathematically, a vector space is simply a special case of a module and so all the materials on "vector space" can be covered in the latter. There are many similar examples in linear algebra topics; e.g., linear transformation v.s. module homomorphism, dual vector space vs. dual module, etc. Similarly, the notion of a connection on a fiber bundle (i.e., Ehresmann connection) subsumes connections on vector bundles and those on principal bundles. The connection situation in particular resulted in a lot of repetitions of definitions. In other words, we have varying treatment of the same/similar subjects depending on sophistication of approach. I don't think this situation is problematic but I think it's inevitable since readers of different backgrounds prefer different presentations. Also, "content forks" need not be "original research"; for example, a connection can be approached from either vector-bundle-pov or a principal-bundle-pov; either approach is standard. Personally I can see "content forks" depending on readers' backgrounds; say one "algebraic curve" article for the general public and the other for the readers with background in algebraic geometry. -- Taku (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Those content forks are different from those originally discussed here, they aren't really simply (or at all) based on pedagogic or popular science take on the subject, but they arise from a the historic development of the field and its usage in practice.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

For "accessible functor", the page Vopěnka's_principle links to Accessible_category, where accessible functors are not mentioned

See Vopěnka's_principle#Definition, the phrase "Every subfunctor of an accessible functor is accessible" marks "accessible functor" with a hyperlink to the wiki page Accessible_category. Unfortunately accessible functors are not mentioned there. Also unfortunately I do not know enough about accessible functors to add information about them. -- 109.172.129.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 14:23, 24 October 2017‎

Nov 2017

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2017/Nov

Dec 2017

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2017/Dec