Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Main pageDiscussionContentAssessmentParticipantsResources

An article of mine seems to be not appearing on Google

Hello,

I wrote an article Deficiency (statistics) which was accepted but is still somehow hidden to the public since it does not appear on search engines like Google. Why is that? The article is about a term introduced by Lucien Le Cam in a famous paper called "Sufficiency and Approximate Sufficiency" in the Annals of Mathematical Statistics which was the starting point for Le Cam theory and he later extended in a book.--Tensorproduct (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

If there are other articles that ought to link to that one but don't, then adding the links may improve the results from Google. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Michael Hardy Thank you for the answer. Also thank you for your contribution to mathematics articles on Wikipedia! I saw your name as the initial author of a lot of articles about infinite-dimensional stochastic analysis. Thank you for your contribution.--Tensorproduct (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It appears on Google for me. MrOllie (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It changed after I commented here.--Tensorproduct (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

1234 (number)

Tension arise between @David Eppstein and @Radlrb in the article 1234 (number). Previously, both users had already edited war in the article Golden ratio, and one of them was blocked. Now, to think that the main problem of the article is about the content explicitly saying about the "mock rational" property of 1234, and both of them are talking about the property from different perspectives, many members of this WikiProject are welcomed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I have a clear-cut case that my addition is worthwhile, as the reference used makes use of the term "schizophrenic" for all its terms. Provided (non-WP:SYNTH) associated properties that tie together, from already published sources (OEIS sum-of-divisors).

I'm not sure why you mention "one of them was blocked" unless you are purpusefully trying to tilt the scales (I see he was your GA arbitrator for Square pyramid, which raises questions here with regard to your impartiality). I am not going to continue debating this with David Eppstein as he is clearly not interested in holding a back-and-forth conversation (as is his history with anyone disagreeing with him, aside from his obvious prejudice as I mentioned), nor will I debate with anyone who blankly denies entries on WP on the basis of breach of specific policies, where nowhere is there a mention of non-addition of properties that directly tie to properties of another number (in light of, distorted "off-topic" removals; like saying that the Golgi apparatus has nothing to do with non-protein synthesis and packaging in a cell, when its in a diverse metabolic environment where even slight temperature changes, for example, lead to differentials in cell metabolism that affect all organelles). This being said, I welcome honest, and intuitive points of view, given the natural goal I have in mind when I contribute here, which is to muster together major properties of numbers, in a manner that links our number articles together into a sort of flowing unit. It's an important and invaluable endeavor! Radlrb (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following this. On the talk page David Eppstein refers to the "first member of sequence to have a repeated digit in the first five after the decimal" property, but I cannot find this on the page or in the edit history of the page. Based on the edit history it seems like this is instead the contentious content. If so, then I think I agree with David Eppstein – however I find the removed content too confusingly stated to be completely sure. (If it's not a schizophrenic number, then what's the sequence in question?) Gumshoe2 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Follow the current stated property, for integer parts of square roots of the sequence of numbers 1, 12, 123. Thats what is there right now. And read the title of the source. Radlrb (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

So the property is that $\lfloor {\sqrt {1}}\rfloor =1$ and $\lfloor {\sqrt {12}}\rfloor =3$ and $\lfloor {\sqrt {123}}\rfloor =11$ are not composite numbers but $\lfloor {\sqrt {1234}}\rfloor =35$ is? And the first few schizophrenic numbers are 0, 1, 12, 123, 1234, ...? Then I don't understand any of the talk page discussion, and also this property seems extremely arbitrary. And I don't understand why the wikipage presently says "Though not strictly a schizophrenic number in base ten..." when it seems that 1234 is exactly a schizophrenic number. Gumshoe2 (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not arbitrary, not any more "arbitrary" than 1234 being the first in its sequence (1, 12, 123, 1234, ...) *not Radlrb (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)* divisible by their one's digit, which David Eppstein added. The sequence property I added mentions its composite integer part that is also the first term in a self-similar sequence, as it points out; the first term. In fact, its not arbitrary at all, because it shows that this sequence is self-similar like the sequence for odd-indexed schizophrenic numbers, tying them together with this property. Indeed, I also see sqrt1234 as a schizophrenic number and many authors do too, however in the literature, the property of interest of repeating digits in the fractional part of their square roots is most prominent in odd-indexed terms (sqrt1, sqrt123, sqrt12345,...), and these are technically the "strict" schizophrenic numbers. If you ask David, he will tell you that the square root of 1234 is not schizophrenic. Radlrb (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't completely follow everything you're saying, but I am confident now in saying that it's a pretty arbitrary property. However I completely agree with you that it's no more arbitrary than the other property you just mentioned – the reference given for it doesn't even suggest that it's notable, it's just mentioned there as an example of a non-solution to some mental puzzle. Gumshoe2 (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you don't follow what I am saying, then you very likely don't understand the very subject matter we are speaking of, I think. 1234 is not a schizophrenic number, is it's square root, likewise for 123, etc. I am amazed, because I showed there that the arithmetic means of divisors of the following even indexed schizophrenic number (sqrt123456) is twice the integer part of the square root of the sqrt of 1234. Then I showed that the product of the first and forty-fourth super primes is the integer part of the sqrt12345678, the following (fourth) indexed member, where 44 has distinct and important partitions that number 1234. (By the way, none of this is OR or SYNTH, as many claim, these are known facts, I'm just juxtaposing them.) So, I am amazed, that so many people here throw the word "arbitrary" around like it's Christmas. Do you have any idea, of how difficult, and challenging, it is to find synchronicity and sense in mathematics? Be grateful, for the love of our very existence and subsistence, that these facts exist. That you ask, for an infinitude of data, to make sense of a sequence linearly that ties sum-of-divisors, aliquot parts, totients, or triangular numbers, together as I am ligating, so as to then say "okay, maybe I'll buy it", is an affront; these types of data represent an unimaginable blessing, any time they come into form. The unimaginable magnitude of complexity to tie these together, and any set of sufficiently differently defined sequences together, in purely logical form, is so astronomically difficult, that we should STILL not expect to delve into the real deep end of mathematics for another ten thousand years, at the very, very least. So when you just tell me something like what I am telling you is "arbitrary", that's akin to a school child (you, me, a plant, anyone) trying to tell the very Earth, or Sun, in their absolute enormous computational power, anything about anything that exists outside a flat surface in her/his little bedroom, house, or school yard. And im being kind here, there's no telling how complex Mathematics really, really is. There's no living organic-born or ethereal angel in our Universe that has a real-idea of all Math. Thats for the stars to contemplate. Radlrb (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That you ask, for an infinitude of data – I don't need an infinitude of data, but it would be nice to have a reliable source demonstrating that this is considered important by someone other than Wikipedians or OEIS contributors. The OEIS has decent standards for correctness of details but very lax relevance standards for inclusion of new sequences.

when you [tell me something] is "arbitrary", that's akin to tell[ing] the very Earth, or Sun [...]" – let's not get carried away please. –jacobolus (t) 20:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Not getting carried away, we are ants still, trying to understand a landscape of truth far larger than you or I can even conceive, proven every millenium by the next mass discovery that upends everything once conceived. If anything, I was being quite minimalistic. The comparison is more on the order of particles, and entire universes. We're little specs, and if you think you have any true idea of anything, check back in your next ten thousand lifetimes, and then tell us what you've learned. Don't come and tell me anything absolute about anything only after 10,000 years of "civilization". There is a saying that goes more or less, "the more aware you are of how little you know, the wiser you become." I'm sure you've heard of it. It makes sense, because the more open you are to what holes you have in your consciousness, the more keenly you will reach to understand more clearly. Radlrb (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to expound about this at whatever length you want on your own blog. It's entirely inappropriate at Wikipedia. –jacobolus (t) 00:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, what policy am I violating here, please enlighten me. I can speak my opinion on shortsightedness that is being displayed here, based on which number properties to include on a number article, to your chagrin. It seems you're also short of an actual response, so you revert to attempting to mute me, which is of course, a weak display of discourse. I can speak my opinion here, period. You're the one who doesn't need to answer, or even read it. Like the rest of what you have already ignored. Radlrb (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This venue is for discussions about issues related to the content or style of mathematics Wikipedia articles which can't be resolved at a specific article talk page or which concern multiple pages. It is not a free-for-all about any Wikipedian's shower thoughts about their communion with the spirit of the universe or whatever you are talking about. Take it to twitter or something; I'm sure your ideas about the unboundedness of existence are perfectly lovely but nobody here cares to read them. –jacobolus (t) 04:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"The integer part of this number's square root is composite" is a rather boring property. If you want to mention schizophrenic numbers, the best thing I can come up with is "1234 appears in a sequence of numbers whose square roots are schizophrenic"; this is at least marginally more interesting than the compositeness of the integer part of the square root. —Kusma (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, in your perspective, since no known “applications” are known, that’s how we define usefulness here, on practical terms alone. Oh I get that; in our mathematical global community, we don’t seek bridges between numbers. Radlrb (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I see he was your GA arbitrator for Square pyramid, which raises questions here with regard to your impartiality Well, in a precise meaning, he reviewed the article Square pyramid regarding the criteria of GA. I did not see anything about my impartiality whenever replying to his comments. The fact that the way you are saying "arbitrator" means I have some dispute with another user, and he gave a solution to alleviate the tension between me and another user? I can't understand what do you mean about that. Perhaps there are some alternative interpretations from your perspective that I could not imagine in my head. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I used the wrong word, but for other reasons. Radlrb (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that on Wikipedia, we assume good faith and use etiquette and civility when talking to others. Cases of severe incivility are subject to policies on WP:UNCIVIL. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone been able to figure out what property is actually being asserted? Like, what is its definition? Tito Omburo (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Number pages

Should pages in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Numbers be added to this WikiProject? I've seen some apparent inconsistencies. For example, 12 (number) and 13 (number) are not in the Project but 11 (number) and 14 (number) are. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mathwriter2718 I'm not sure whether it is important to include them in WP:WPM, but we do have articles about number theory other than those enumerated numbers. To put it in a plain, if you want to include them, then so be it. Conversely, why can't just include articles such as Prime number, Regular number, 69 (number), Number theory, or any articles that involves number theory in WP:NUMBERS? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You can add them to WPM if you want. I would generally recommend assigning them "mid" priority. –jacobolus (t) 05:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr @Jacobolus I went ahead and added a lot of the more important ones, though I think it would be a bad idea to add every number 1-1,000 (I think they all have their own page). My opinion is that numbers should be added to this project if and only if they are deemed sufficiently important. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mathwriter2718 But the problem is how many that is sufficiently important in mathematics? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is subjective, and I personally think it would be a bad idea to have a long argument about this. If people disagree with my opinions about what articles to add to the Project, they can go ahead and remove or add and I won't contest them. I just hope that any changes are consistent with changes made or not made to other pages. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

If we are trying to be restrictive of how important they are in this project, the only I can think of is are they have a relation to other mathematical branches: 1234 (number) in geometry? But my idea is probably not always good or the best idea, so other opinions are welcome. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want to see the articles I added and the ratings I made, here's all of my Talk page contributions today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Mathwriter2718&namespace=1&tagfilter=&start=2024-07-18&end=2024-07-18

Note that I revised a few of my ratings later and also that some articles were already in the project and were already rated. This might be a good starting point for someone who wants to look at this question much more carefully than I did. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Arrow's impossibility theorem

There is a lot of attention on Talk:Arrow's impossibility theorem right now (a GA nomination, my comment, several other comments), and I invite people from this Project to join the discussion. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion under my post in this talk page has turned into a lengthy discussion between one other editor and myself, and about issues such as this, there should probably be at least a third opinion. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Theory pages vs structure pages

There are many pairs pages in this project of the form (theory of X, X). Examples:

• Ring theory and Ring (mathematics)
• Group theory and Group (mathematics). For this one, the pages explicitly make clear that Group (mathematics) is about "basic notions" and Group theory is the "advanced treatment".
• Riemannian geometry and Riemannian manifold
• Linear algebra and Vector space
• Topology and Topological space
• Module theory and Module (mathematics). This one is a bit different from the others, because Module theory is a redirect to Module (mathematics)!
• Geometry and Geometric space. In this case, it is the second that links to the former.
• Graph theory and Graph (discrete mathematics)
• Set theory and Set (mathematics). This is again apparently supposed to follow the more advanced vs more elementary distinction.

Can we put some guidance, maybe in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics, about what content goes in which page, and when to have a redirect? Mathwriter2718 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Another thing that seems arbitrary (to me) is that for some of these pairs, the two articles will have different Vital article status. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The vital article list is somewhat arbitrary. If you care strongly and want to comb through the list of vital articles at various levels and re-level or add mathematics items, and come up with a clear proposal that other editors here agree sounds okay, I'm sure it would be possible to make changes. –jacobolus (t) 22:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the list and I think it's pretty good. When I find something that I think should be changed, I will post it on the relevant vital articles page Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5/STEM. I've posted 3 so far. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I am allergic to the (probably impossible) task of trying to centrally resolve questions like this, so I will make the sole observation that "Linear algebra and Vector space" is very much unlike the other examples in that linear algebra is vast and in particular consists of many things that few people would call "the theory of vector spaces". --JBL (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: Maybe because linear algebra is the theory of linear transformations? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Piecewise § Requested move 20 July 2024

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Piecewise § Requested move 20 July 2024, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Image in Estimator article

I posted this at the Statistics project page, but that project seems to be very quiet. Can someone here take a look?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Statistics#Image_in_Estimator_article

. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted it from the article and left a message on the talk page of the user who created it. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you 76.14.122.5 (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Mathematics glossaries

Given that Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries is inactive, do we want to do anything with the mathematics and logic glossaries? A few possibilities:

1. These glossaries are a bad use of our editors' time. Remove them from this WikiProject.
2. These glossaries are not very important to us, but they should still all be added to this WikiProject as low-priority.
3. It is useful to have some glossaries, and we should clean up the existing organization insofar as it is insufficient and spend some editor time improving these.
4. Glossaries are be an important way for us to organize our articles, and we should spend significant time on them.
5. Some of these glossaries are important and we should spend time on them, and others are really not important and we can safely ignore them.

I'm wondering where others stand on this. I would consider myself either a 2er or a 3er. If some of you are 3ers or 4ers, I can propose a clean-up to the existing organization. Also note the existence of Category:Outlines of mathematics and logic and Category:Mathematics-related lists. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I definitely find some of the glossaries to be important, for at least two reasons. First and most importantly, they provide wikilink targets for terminology that may not have or deserve its own separate article. But also, by putting the terminology for a subfield in a single place, they give readers a broad overview of the terminology and can be a helpful warning about certain pieces of ambiguous terminology. In particular I think those justifications are all valid for the glossary I have put the most effort into, glossary of graph theory. But I don't think your questions can be answered as you have formulated them, at least not by me, because I don't have the comprehensive knowledge about all our glossaries that would enable me to answer universally-quantified questions about them.

As for wastes of editors' time: I think you are wasting your time casting around for content to destroy. Find something more constructive to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein I am sorry that I gave off the impression that I am "casting around for content to destroy". To be honest, I am kind of shocked by your accusation, and I don't really know where it is coming from. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you found my inclusion of position 1 offensive, but I do not support position 1, and position 1 does not call for "destroying content". Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

After looking again at @Jacobolus's comment, maybe I was unclear: by 1's "remove from this project", I meant "remove the WPM template from their talk page", not delete the page. I only brought this up because some of the math glossary pages are do not have the WPM template, and I was trying to ask if this was intentional before I went ahead and added them to WPM. That was what really prompted me to make this post. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove the WPM template. If it is missing from one or another of these pages feel free to add it. –jacobolus (t) 08:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

These glossary pages all have very few page views. Feel free to work on improving them if you want to, or else leave them alone. They aren't particularly important to Wikipedia as a project or WPM just because they are so rarely seen. But they also aren't hurting anything. There's no reason to remove them. –jacobolus (t) 02:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

As someone who edits the glossaries articles a lot, I think the glossaries should have a place in Wikipedia. To add to what David said, the glossaries often contain red links and red links are useful and important. I don’t know about view counts of the glossaries but they shouldn’t matter much; in fact, in Wikipedia, we don’t pursue views or likes (gasp) and that should be a good thing. What I am less sure about are lists of topics or outline articles; they seem to cover essentially the same ground as that by the glossaries. So, we can argue there is some redundancy, which itself is not a problem but the less redundant the content is the easier we can maintain it. —- Taku (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I had a look on category:Glossaries of mathematics. Most of them are glossaries of "terminology of some area of mathematics". Such glossaries are very useful, especially for areas that have a large terminology that is commonly used without being redefined and for areas, such as graph theory, where the number of variants make correct linking difficult. Some general glossaries seem also essential, such as Glossary of mathematical jargon and Glossary of mathematical symbols, for which many individual entries cannot be the subject of specific articles. The only mathematical glossary that is problematic seems Glossary of areas of mathematics, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and also because the linear order of a glossary hides the complex graph of the relationships between areas of mathematics, better renderes with categories.

On the other hand, most articles in Category:Outlines of mathematics and logic are misleading because they oversimplify their object and give a biased information by omitting important aspects and giving too much importance to minor aspects. IMO, most articles entitled "Outline of someAreaOfMathematics" or "List of topics in someAreaOfMathematics" should be transformed into a redirect to someAreaOfMathematics. D.Lazard (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning Category:Glossaries of mathematics, I hadn't seen that. I updated Wikipedia:Contents/Glossaries/Mathematics and logic to be consistent with it. I went ahead and added all of the pages in that category (that weren't already) to WPM.

It seems to me like the following glossaries ought to exist (but don't currently):

• Analysis (real and complex),
• Combinatorics,
• Differential equations and dynamics (which would include both ODE and PDE),
• Geometric topology,
• Logic (or model theory, if logic overlaps too much with set theory, for which a glossary already exists),
• Number theory.

Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We have Glossary of algebraic topology, which should cover geometric topology. On the other hand, I am quite surprised to find out that we don’t have glossary of number theory and glossary of complex analysis (we do have Glossary of arithmetic and diophantine geometry, but that one would arguably have a limited scope.) —- Taku (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I have just started glossary of real and complex analysis; seems no-brainer. —- Taku (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. That really is a no-brainer, as is Glossary of number theory, which I will start today. In my opinion, Glossary of algebraic topology should be renamed to Glossary of algebraic and geometric topology and geometric topology terms should be added to it. I also think it would make sense to rename Glossary of topology to Glossary of general topology or Glossary of point-set topology. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Why not make Glossary of geometric topology a separate article? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I would support this too. I don't feel strongly either way. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I personally feel geometric topology is a subfield of algebraic topology, and it’s usually easier to maintain fewer articles. But I don’t have a strong opinion on the matter. I second on a move of glossary of topology; in fact, I will just go ahead and do now. —- Taku (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I definitely disagree that geometric topology is a subfield of algebraic topology. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it probably depends on how you define algebraic topology. Do you consider Poincaré conjecture belongs to algebraic topology or geometric topology? For me, it’s a result in algebraic topology more specifically in geometric topology. I do not see it does not belong to algebraic topology; that’s weird (weird because Poincaré is a sort of results you tell laypersons when you explain algebraic topology). That’s what I mean by a subfield. Taku (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Guidance on spelling

Some terms have alternate spellings in the literature, e.g., fiber versus fibre. I checked a few article on style, and while they addressed assumptions and symbols, they did not address spelling. Is there an article that addresses alternate spelling of mathematical terms? Should there be? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Are there any mathematical examples that aren't just American vs British English? Gumshoe2 (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See MOS:SPELLING where meter/metre is considered, but not fiber/fibre. D.Lazard (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The most obvious example is Abelian versus Commutative.

Would you consider vielbein versus n-bein to pertain to Mathematics, or only to Physics? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

An abelian integral is not a commutative integral. The fact that a "commutative group" is the same thing as an abelian group is not a question of spelling, it is a question of terminology. The spelling question is that, commonly, "abelian" is not capitalized (see MOS:SCIMATH). I ignore the origin og this exception to the general rules of capitalization. D.Lazard (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that abelian/commutative is not a spelling issue. Gumshoe2 (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have written terminology instead of spelling. And that includes guidance on capitalization.

Yes, abelian, like Gaussian, is one of those terms that has different meanings in different fields. For that matter, so is commutative. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the most important thing is to be consistent within an article. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Peer review of Algebra

I was hoping to get some feedback on the article Algebra in preparation for an FA nomination. Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Algebra/archive1. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Infobox knot vs Template:Infobox knot theory

Are there good reasons to have two different templates or should these be merged? If the former, what are the situations where one should be used instead of the other? Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I have seen Template:Infobox knot used in some cases for things that are not mathematical knots (or not usually thought of in a mathematical context) (example: Matthew Walker knot), so it would seem to me that this might be the difference. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

mapsto arrow symbol

Does anyone know the history of the ⁠$\mapsto$⁠ symbol, LaTeX \mapsto, usually pronounced "maps to"? We have an article which I just moved from maplet to maps to because the former name seems exceedingly rare and basically unused in mathematical literature, but it's hard to find information about where the symbol comes from or much clear discussion about its nature and use. Our article is currently not great. One book I found in a search claims the symbol was invented by Bourbaki c. 1930 but doesn't give a specific source. –jacobolus (t) 05:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Widest path problem

A user on widest path problem is edit-warring to add a long paragraph on widest-path problem, citing recently published research in preprints and/or dubious journals, claiming a result that was long-known (that the undirected all-pairs version can be solved in quadratic time), and in more recent edits has additionally removed text and sourcing documenting the fact that this was long known [1]. I've hit my revert limit. Additional editors would be helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm still somewhat new to Wikipedia, so forgive me if this is obvious, but is there not a better option here than actively fighting the edit war until, I suppose, the editor gives up? Can we request for the page to be restricted to autoconfirmed or extended confirmed users? Mathwriter2718 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have reported them to WP:3RRN, which will at some point result in their being blocked or the page being protected for a brief period. Anyone is welcome to try to explain things to them on their talk-page; it is often better when that comes from someone not involved (hint hint nudge nudge ;) ). --JBL (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems that I was wrong about "for a brief period" -- probably for the best. --JBL (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

(Generally speaking, though, people who write this kind of thing while promoting their own recent research are not really very interested in learning about our rules or contributing to Wikipedia in a serious way.) --JBL (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I kind of want to get e.g., fame, citation etc. on a T-shirt. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for getting this situation resolved!

Autoconfirmed protection would be an appropriate solution if they return not-logged-in or if sockpuppetry becomes a problem. But those sorts of measures require sufficient evidence of continued misbehavior and I'm too WP:INVOLVED with that article to have done that already myself. In this case, warning them for edit-warring and letting them get blocked when they ignored the warning may have been the easiest solution. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Welcome Jean-Pierre Serre

The edit summary of this edit is signed J.-P. Serre. Glad to welcome this new editor, born in 1926. D.Lazard (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That's very exciting! David Hilbert (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathwriter2718 (talk • contribs)

My own suspicion is that Serre has been quietly editing Wikipedia from IP accounts for decades. Tito Omburo (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Wish on making formula editing easier

I submitted a “community wish” on mathematical formulas: meta:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Editing mathematics is too difficult. Jean Abou Samra (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You can use {{tmath}} to save a bit of typing, e.g. {{tmath|x}} means the same as <math>x</math> and either one renders as ⁠$x$⁠, though which one of these is easier to read is somewhat a matter of taste. (This template has an extra advantage that if you put punctuation after the math, you won't get a line break in between.) If you want to specify inline style, you can write e.g. {{tmath|\textstyle \int_1^2 dx/x}} as an alternative to <math display=inline>\int_1^2 dx/x</math> for ⁠$\textstyle \int _{1}^{2}dx/x$⁠. If you need to include an equals sign, either wrap it like {{=}} or explicitly name your template parameter 1 as in {{tmath|y {{=}} x}} or {{tmath|1= y = x}} to produce ⁠$y=x$⁠.

You can ask if you like but special syntax seems extremely unlikely to be implemented. A more plausible thing we could do without platform changes is to find a template name only 2 or 3 letters or symbols. Not sure it would be worth the trouble though. A shortcut something like {{imath|x^2}} for {{tmath|\textstyle x^2}} could be helpful. –jacobolus (t) 18:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Huh! Never heard of this template ever in my life. But the code for writing is apparently somewhat strenuous to me, so I'm comfortable with <math>. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you bolding pointing out flaws in the current math notation system. I think it will take a significant amount of effort to improve it, and certainly the WPM editors should be involved in significant changes.

It's good that you're thinking about ways to shorten the math syntax, but dollar signs for inline math is very unlikely to happen because it would mess up a lot of articles that have dollar signs in them. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The official LaTeX \( ... \) and \[ ... \] syntax is less problematic, but I think still unlikely to get Wikimedia approval. In general mathematics formatting efforts at Wikimedia have been focused on the vain hope that mathml will eventually work and on doing as little as possible in any other direction. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems like math editing should be one problem visual editor "solves", or perhaps via a plug-in that automatically converts LaTeX into wiki math formatting. Related, thunderbird email client has math editing in in a separate window where you can use ordinary latex and is then converted into whatever format the email client understands. Tito Omburo (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, @Jean Abou Samra if you ever run into difficulty with math formatting on a specific page, feel free to ask for help here, or drop a note at my talk page. –jacobolus (t) 16:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

This is just some general comment. There is a question on what is technically possible, but there is also a question on what Wikimedia/Wikipedia community would want. I have been having a suspicion that the subper implementation of math rendering/editing here might be intentional; i.e., it’s Wikipedia:Broken by design. Surprisingly (and not really surprisingly), not many people are fond of math contents in Wikipedia. So, maybe it is not necessary for Wikipedia community's interest to make math editing easier (at least, I have not seen any real efforts to recruit more new editors to write and edit math articles). See also User:Deltahedron. So, if this theory is correct, the foundation may nominally solicit some comments for improvement but they will never be implemented. (I emphasize I may be wrong about my suspicion.) —- Taku (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/0.999.../archive2

Would anyone be willing and able to weigh in at this FA review as to whether any major concerns remain? XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if I want to weigh in about whether "major concerns remain" in the abstract, but I feel that the article 0.999... is extremely good. I think it hits every important thing it should, and I think the explanations are very good, and it does a good job at correctly discussing the various arguments. I also like the discussion of skepticism in education. I think the "Related questions" section is a bit lackluster, though, and I think that the article might be able to do a better job at sourcing and/or justifying early on the definition of 0.999... as being the smallest number greater than every number in the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, .... Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Piecewise#Requested move 20 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Piecewise#Requested move 20 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 20:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

RfD

Can somebody help me list a new redirect for discussion about Elongated tetragonal disphenoid? There is a discussion the redirect should be deleted, but the result is the wrong venue. Now I have no idea how do I handle this technical thing.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elongated tetragonal disphenoid

Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If you install the Twinkle tool (see instructions at this link), it allows you to conveniently create an RfD (and any other deletion discussion). Once installed, go to the redirect page, press on 'TW' next to the star and click on XfD. You can then input your reasoning and submit the RfD; Twinkle will create the discussion for you. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Are there other ways to propose RfD instead of using Twinkle? This tool seems risky. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Have you seen WP:RFDHOWTO? Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)