Talk:Pseudoconvex function

The talk of Plurisubharmonic function states that "If $f$ is a plurisubharmonic function and further $f$ is continuous, then $f$ is called a pseudoconvex function." So pseudoconvex is not equivalent to Plurisubharmonic and should not redirect there unless the special case is mentioned in the article. --Xeeron (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a textbook

The dense use of mathematical notation (including at least two characters that my browser can't even handle) and jargon make this article more closely resemble a (section of a) mathematics textbook rather than an encyclopaedia article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made every effort to state things in words Hrafn, but some symbols are unavoidable as is some jargon. For instance, one certainly needs to be able to say "Euclidean space" without defining that term. I have removed the textbook tag. As for your browser, you clearly have a broken configuration that cannot display unicode symbols properly. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is likely to be completely incomprehensible to somebody who does not have at least some university-level algebra, and probably would only be fully comprehensible to somebody who has taken at least two or three years of it at that level. I don't really know what purpose an article that assumes that level of knowledge serves. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a certain amount of technical knowledge required to understand most mathematics articles on Wikipedia. I don't see any reason this stub should be held to a higher standard than the rest of our mathematics articles, particularly since the notion is not likely to be relevant to anyone without a substantial quantitative background to start with. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't know why mathematics articles should be held to a lower standard than articles for any other subject -- which are expected to be accessible to the non-specialist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't say that this article was inaccessible to a non-specialist. I'm not a specialist in convex analysis. It should be accessible to anyone with a good background in university mathematics. While it is certainly the case that our articles are supposed to be made as accessible to as wide an audience as possible, this is always tempered by a realistic view of who the target audience is. Indeed, most scientific articles on Wikipedia are not accessible to granny (e.g., 1,2-Dimethylcyclopropane). Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would lay claim to "a good background in university mathematics" -- but specialising in statistics (and to a lesser extent calculus), not algebra, and I would estimate that I only understand about half the article. If you need to have specialised in algebra to understand it, then I suspect the article serves little purpose as (i) this limits the readership to a considerable degree & (ii) such specialists are probably capable of reading up the primary literature on the topic in any case. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you get the mistaken idea that the article is primarily about algebra. It discusses convex functions and minimization problems, which are both covered in most university level calculus courses. In response to your second point, indeed this argument could be applied to any article in a specialized topic area. However, such articles exist in abundance, are indeed consistent with Wikipedia's mission. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and according to Miscellaneous Technical (Unicode block), the symbols I'm missing are 'KEYBOARD' (2328) & 'LEFT-POINTING ANGLE BRACKET' (2329). Why these would appear in a mathematical article, or be expected in a standard OS installation or web browser, I don't know. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what the status of unicode symbols is in mathematics articles is a perennial debate, but our current Manual of Style does give its blessing to unicode symbols that correspond to named html entities. The left and right angle brackets are &lang; and &rang;. But as you probably know, the appropriate way to lobby for this sort of change would be to start a threat at WT:MOSMATH. (However, this is a discussion that has happened before many times already.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]