Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dennui (talk | contribs) at 09:22, 9 July 2020 (→Draft:Peano surface). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
This is a discussion page for
WikiProject Mathematics
This page is devoted to discussions of issues relating to mathematics articles on Wikipedia. Related discussion pages include:
Please add new topics at the bottom of the page and sign your posts.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Template:Wikipedia ad exists

Extra eyes

Would someone mind taking a look at List of mathematical constants to see if they agree with my reverts of a couple recent additions? I'm at 3RR, and so I'm stuck. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to think of a less rewarding way to spend time than convincing someone not to include rational powers of small integers in List of mathematical constants. --JBL (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What’s the inclusion criteria of the list? Restricting it to constants with their own articles might save a lot of time in general. — MarkH21talk 03:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. At least a couple items on the list had articles that have been deleted, and it might be best to remove those. XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking along those lines as well, although I could conceivably see some entries without dedicated articles if they were at least discussed in sufficient detail in some other article. I was thinking about taking a closer look this evening. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that clear inclusion criteria would be beneficial. --JBL (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article badly needs a rename, and the use of "mathematical constant" throughout the project should be rethought. People seem to be using it to mean interesting mathematical constants. But a mathematical constant doesn't have to be interesting. It doesn't even have to be definable. All it has to be is constant.
Maybe something like list of named numbers? --Trovatore (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a valid point, but I don’t know a good solution. Named numbers isn’t great either, since every number is effectively named under a loose interpretation of named, but a strict interpretation excludes things like Natural logarithm of 2. — MarkH21talk 23:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of named constants? though "named" seems a bit redundant. After all, for example, list of theorems is really a list of named theorems. -- Taku (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have also List of named differential equations. This is an article that I split out from Differential equation#Applications in August 2019, after the numerous additions by a single user of named differential equations (apparently, all that they have found in WP). I have chosen this title because List of differential equations seemed ambiguous for this content. So, List of named ... is fine for me. I would prefer List of named constants to list of named numbers for making clear that this is not a list of numerals, which, after all, are names for numbers. D.Lazard (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about List of especially notable complex numbers. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about using "notable" but I'm worried about mixing the WP-term-of-art sense of the word with its common meaning. To Wikipedians acting as Wikipedians, "notable" means something like "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources", where again "reliable source" is a term of art. We have to be careful to remember that that isn't how normal people (or even what passes for normal mathematicians) talk.
I do prefer "number" to "constant", for the reasons I gave. It's true that lots of "normal people" confuse "number" with "numeral", but that's not a case where we're being led astray by a term of art; it's just a case where they're wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of named constants seems the best of the suggestions so far, to me. I agree that we should avoid the term "notable", since its Wikipedian definition isn't quite the same as its meaning elsewhere. XOR'easter (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to object to "constant". --Trovatore (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a bit of a hard time following your objection in this context. (Sorry! I'm probably just being a bit dense.) If a constant is named, then surely it is "interesting" — well, interesting to enough people that a name has become established. And, likewise, if a constant is named then surely it is "definable", at least to the point where it can be discussed, even if it's not algorithmically computable. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "constant" makes sense in this context. They're numbers. How exactly would they vary? Calling them "constants" is either redundant or a propagation of what I think is an inappropriate quasi-neologism. --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not whether the title is correct from the point of view of mathematical logic. It is how people will understand the title. "Twenty two" and the number of the beast are named numbers and have not their place in this list. On the other hand, Euler's identity states "The identity also links five fundamental mathematical constants"; who is willing to edit the article for replacing "fundamental mathematical constant" by "fundamental number" or "fundamental mathematical number"? So, even if List of named numbers is more correct from a logical point of view, List of named constants must be preferred as less ambiguous, and clearer for most rreaders. Note also that either a section must be added for physical constants, or "mathematical" must be added to the title. D.Lazard (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this sense of "constant" is really in use. I suspect it comes from Mathworld and Eric Weissstein. I have a strong aversion to helping propagate Mathworld neologisms. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Lazard that "constant" is an ok term; it's as opposed to a variable; pi is a (universal) constant even if it is just a number since it is independent of radius, volume or time, etc.. -- Taku (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a neologism. See examples from 2003, 1999, 1996, 1994, 1978 and 1877. XOR'easter (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So nice list of attestations; got to give you credit (although your 1994 one is not an example of the sense being used here; you should strike that one). Still. What's wrong with "number"? --Trovatore (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is eplained in my previous post. D.Lazard (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of equation formatting

Surface_plasmon_resonance_microscopy has a number of equations written with custom formatting. I'm not to familiar with math formatting on-wiki. Could someone fro mthis project take a quick skim through to see if they're easily re-writable? Thanks in advance for any assistance! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Evolution and evolvability: You weren't kidding! Michael Hardy made some improvements, I did some more, and there's still plenty to be done. I should note that some of the formulas whose formatting I improved are clearly either wrong or incoherent or both. --JBL (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JBL,Michael Hardy: Thanks! And also useful (and worrying) to know that they had errors/ambiguities. I've also pinged WP:phys on this, since fixing them is pushing my outside my abilities. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 08:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Evolution and evolvability: Ok, sounds good. To be precise, it's clear that the numbered equation Eq. 9 cannot be what was intended. --JBL (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As with any other content, apply WP:V. If there is doubt about an equation and it cannot be verified by reference to a cited source, delete it.--Srleffler (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an absurd suggestion; the article has all sorts of problems, but people with no understanding of the content randomly deleting portions of it will make those problems worse, not better. --JBL (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you do not know the subject, but are sure the equation is wrong, then go to the source to find a correct version. If there is no source, then apply the citation needed template which will warn people that the equation should not be trusted. Just deleting it may make it difficult for someone who knows the subject to fix the article since it leaves him/her with no hint as to what was intended. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just did the remaining 2, I think that's all of them. There were outright mistakes in notation in these ones too, with things suddenly changing from line to line. But I have 0 background whatsoever in the topic and much of the text is incoherent so I found that all I could really do is format :( - Astrophobe (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfD

Hello, I wanted to notify the project of some RfD nominations for mathematical characters at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 24 I've started today. Currently, there is mostly a one-to-one discussion, which probably isn't that helpful. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Field (mathematics)

Recently, Category:Field theory was speedily renamed/moved to Category:Field (mathematics). (Field theory is a disambiguation page, and so the name of Category:Field theory is/was itself ambiguous.) However, to me the name Category:Field (mathematics) suggests a category collecting articles about specific fields, and I would prefer the name Category:Field theory (mathematics), to make it match with Category:Category theory, Category:Group theory, Category:Lattice theory, Category:Module theory, Category:Ring theory, Category:Semigroup theory and so on. Then again, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." What do others say? – Tea2min (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "field theory" (referring to the collection of mathematical statements around fields) is not commonly used, AFAIK (in contrast to ring theory and other theories). I therefore don't think a category "Field theory" is a good idea. Jakob.scholbach (talk)
We have a Glossary of field theory, haivng a category of field theory seems fine by me. --JBL (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Field theory isn’t that rarely used. It’s often a term that’s applied when describing Galois theory for instance. I think Category:Field theory (mathematics) would be appropriate as a separate category from Category:Field (mathematics) (with the former containing the latter). — MarkH21talk 18:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category namers sometimes use the singular to classify articles about the general topic, and the plural for individual instances. Compare Category:Surname and Category:Surnames. I would expect to find articles about an individual field in Category:Fields (something). Certes (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Ehrlich

Notable? --JBL (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would tentatively say "no". He works in the philosophy of mathematics, so citation counts are going to be low and uninformative. I'd look for book reviews first, and a few do exist [1][2][3], but his two books were co-edited collections rather than treatises he authored himself. I'd hesitate to call that the kind of "body of work" that the notability guideline for authors asks for. Nor does it seem like those two co-edited collections attracted more than a baseline level of attention. I'm not seeing prestigious awards or journal editorships, either. XOR'easter (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot detect that this person passes the Average Professor Test stated in the guidelines. He is accomplished, but not clearly unusually so. Mgnbar (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both. It was PRODded a couple of years ago and declined for not convincing reasons -- eventually I may take it to AfD, if no one else gets there first. --JBL (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now at AfD. --JBL (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

L2 norm

Please, discuss at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 24#L2 norm about the best target for the redirect L2 norm. D.Lazard (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mathbot?

Anyone know what has happened to Mathbot? No new additions to Mathlists since June 27. I seem to remember this type of thing happening a while ago as well.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly related User talk:Oleg Alexandrov#High WP 1.0 bot login rate. Oleg seems to be working on the bot to reduce the number of times it logs in. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Peter Li

This draft needs work from an editor who is knowledgeable in mathematics. The subject probably satisfies academic notability, but the draft needs work. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can i just move it by myself? IGNOREALLRULES? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennui (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very confused by the comment from your review "This draft does not establish academic notability as submitted. The subject probably is notable, based on the unverified statement that he is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences." as one of the references is directly to his member page at the AAAS, which includes his citation.
Also, for anyone editing now (I'm too confused about the "new article" process to do it myself), there shouldn't be a comma between "differential" and "Harnack" Gumshoe2 (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amacad is definitely enough for academic notability and the draft looks adequate as a stub. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The draft was not in good shape, and the article looks satisfactory now. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason the title of the page has been changed from "Peter Li" to "Peter Wai-Kwong Li". I think this isn't appropriate since he is professionally known as Peter Li, and his name is given as such in virtually all (80 out of 81) of his papers. I can't understand how to modify the title, can someone help? Gumshoe2 (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dennui (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics Drafts

There are 79 pages in Category:Draft-Class mathematics pages. Many of these seem to be pages which have been accepted but the review didn't correctly redirect the talk page as well. I'm trying to clear some of these.

In looking through the now accepted draft I came across Change of fiber a pretty sub-standard main space article. There might be some point in merging it somewhere or perhaps a delete or prod is in order.--Salix alba (talk): 18:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth merging to Fibration. What's here now is just a short textbook-style treatment that's really not enough on its own. But the fact that May devotes a whole section to it gives me a little pause though. I'll do a little poking around later and see if maybe there's more than could be done with this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do people think of Draft:Eigencircle of a 2x2 matrix? Published in the well known Mathematics Magazine and The Mathematical Gazette, and seems to have a few references elsewhere.--Salix alba (talk): 19:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found and added to this draft category listing many more draft biographies of mathematicians. Most are junk but a few look likely to be notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really not related to Mohr's circle? How many useful ways of associating a circle to a 2x2 matrix can there be? It's hard to tell without detailed algebra, because the purpose/motivation of the eigencircle is never really explained. Mgnbar (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want to discourage anyone but just want to mention that we also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages, which I think is better maintained (mainly by me) and tracks more math drafts. Maybe getting rid of this category altogether is simpler than cleaning it up. —- Taku (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The advantage of the category is that people can easily add the drafts to the category just by placing the appropriate banner on the talk page. This work flow matches that for other projects and is included in the instructions displayed to editors. The work flow goes something like this:
  • Editor goes to WP:AFC and hits the create article button.
  • After a couple of dialog pages they then get to create their first draft.
  • This created a skeleton page with the {{AFC submission}} template. In the 'Improving your odds of a speedy review' it has instructions for how to alert wikiprojects:
... You can then add {{WikiProject TOPIC}} at the top of the talk page.
  • User will then go to the talk page, and taking an educated guess try to insert {{WikiProject Mathematics}}.
  • For historical reasons this is not the banner for this project, instead it gives instructions to use {{maths rating}} or {{maths banner}} instead.
  • The user will try to use the first inserting {{maths rating}}. This fails with instructions that the template {{maths banner}} should be used for drafts.
  • Finally the user gets the right template which lists the article in the category.
This workflow is harder than it needs to be. At the least we can change {{WikiProject Mathematics}} to be clearer about which template to use. It might be possible to make it directly insert the right template.
The list and category are probably complementary. The list allows some sort of annotation and the category allows users to add list articles themselves. By adding the category to your watchlist you can keep track of new additions.--Salix alba (talk): 17:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have an opinion on the AfC process that I am not permitted to express due to a topic ban (by the way, many editors don't use AfC at all but just the draft space). Any case, yes, I agree that the list and category can be complementary and maintaining both is not a bad idea (just like we have "list of X" article as well as "glossary of X" article) -- Taku (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The AfC and draft processes are intended as a way to let newbies think they are making articles but then keep the junk they create out of the real encyclopedia. Once that is understood, all other parts of the process that you might think to be backwards or wrong make sense. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Afc ≠ draft space. Again, I'm not really allowed to respond to the comment like that. But, to stick to the facts, the *fact* is that this category has not been maintained in the past. There are many more facts I want to mention but I shouldn't (having this convention is too dangerous) -- Taku (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that the list has also not been maintained in the past. When I checked yesterday (maybe it was fixed now) it included redirects from drafts that had been promoted to articles as long as three months earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is *generally* well-maintained, I think.. Stopping the conversation. -- Taku (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mathbot/Changes_to_mathlists

This page stopped getting updated on June 27. What's going on? Who attends to this? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see: That's still User:Oleg Alexandrov. I'll drop him a note. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Peano surface

This article may need some work. But it's useful. Dennui (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe potential to DYK. Dennui (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to everyone who is helping to improve the article! Dennui (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of OEIS sequences#Requested move 4 July 2020

This discussion about a possible page move is perhaps of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

A discussion has begun at Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe which may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a specifc RfC on the topic here: Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe#Request for comment: on the notability of the CTMU in 2020 with sources published after 2006 and "unredirect" of this page to Christopher Langan - Scarpy (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics&oldid=966806481"