Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] knot theory for FA?

Jkasd, who is off to a good start on Wikipedia (including adding a nice knot table to the knot theory article), has suggested putting up knot theory for FA status. I think some (maybe even many) people are happy with math articles being A-class (rather than FA), and there have been issues in the past with math FA nominations. Nonetheless, I think this ought to be discussed as Jkasd has wisely asked for comments before starting the nomination. Personally, one thing I'm a bit afraid of is the FA reviewers coming in and mucking up the article. Comments, such as objections or reasons why this might be good, are welcome! [I've notified Jkasd of this thread]--C S (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead would need to be fixed for FA, which might be good or bad. It reads well, but it is at least double if not triple the standard post-FAR length. The lead has some unsourceable claims in it, and that will force a hundred little footnotes into the lead as well. Certainly these need to be fixed, but we might want to have some experienced, patient, and understanding editors ready to handle the subtle changes to the article and to respond to the FAR. It might be even better to have some experienced editors go in before the FAR request to preemptively fix a few of them (though its always wise to leave a few things for a reviewer to complain about). JackSchmidt (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

By "FAR" I believe you mean FAC (FAR refers to FA review which is for FAs that are revisited). By "unsourceable" I believe you mean "unsourced". I'm curious as to what you think is unsourced and would require so many footnotes. Citations would only be required for items which are not already sourced in the body (as the lede is meant to summary the body of the article). I can see a handful of sourcing for some of the historical claims, but not much else as far as the lede goes.

The lede length is a bit worrisome, although I note that actually from a random sampling, most are well within 50-75% length of knot theory's lede, and some like action potential are substantially longer. I think it shouldn't be too difficult to shorten it to about 80% of the current length. --C S (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, FAC not FAR, I've mostly watched the FAR process. I definitely mean unsourceable, though there are plenty of things that might want footnotes. The majority of "This was investigated most actively..." to "wide variety of background and goals." cannot be adequately sourced. If you can find a knot theorist's recent state of the union address, then some of it can be sourced, but this is making huge claims about a huge number of people in the present day. It of course can easily be altered to make sourceable claims, but perhaps they no longer convey the same simple message ("this used to be done, then this was done." really, does it say more than that?). Most of the FA articles I've looked at are littered with citations, and I don't think this one would be an exception. I don't feel footnotes in a lead improve an article, but I also believe in the three paragraph lead that doesn't need any. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, checking some more FAs, it looks like 0-20 footnotes in the 3-5 paragraph lead without much pattern as to which articles have 0 and which have 20. At any rate, I only mention the problems in the lead as an example of *good* writing that might have to be altered, doctored, cited, etc. as a result. The FAC (or at least the FARs I've seen) creates a sense of urgency to fix those teensy problems, rather than correcting fairly egregious problems in the stub and start class articles, or just generally improving articles to B class. In other words, I was just trying to agree with you about A- being generally good enough, with a specific example of good enough from this article. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about having editors ready to shepherd the article through the process, yes, I definitely think that is necessary. In the few math FA nominations I've observed closely, it was definitely necessary to have math editors at hand to make sure everything went smoothly. That's another reason for starting this discussion here. Unless there are several people willing to do this, I don't think FA status will happen. I have nothing against the FA system (not that I'm particularly enthusiastic about it), so if it came up for nomination, I'd help out a bit. But I think the nomination will require a lot more than that. --C S (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, C S. I can see how making this into a featured article might involve "dumbing it down", in an attempt to make it more accessible to the layman. However, I believe we should still try to find definitions that our both mathematically rigorous and easily understandable. Maybe we can receive some new insights on how to find this delicate balance, but in the case that they do start to mess up the article, I say we pull out and content ourselves with an A-class article. Jkasd 22:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about "dumbing down"? --C S (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I see you think "mucking up" = "dumbing it down", but that's hardly my concern. If only what we had to worry about was FA reviewers carefully reading the article and trying to make it more accessible! Typically, the "battle" is the other way. Math editors trying to make it accessible while a reviewer argues that it is original research or not supported by a citation (because the source may use more weighty notation, etc.), and trying to make it more complicated. --C S (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. This is one of the reasons I didn't just nominate it myself, I've never had experience with FA reviews, and I apparently don't understand the dynamics of the situation. Jkasd 22:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it doesn't look like a featured article yet, but it should. When I thought about possible mathematics articles that should be featured, a while ago, I found four obvious candidates: Srinivasa Ramanujan, four colour theorem, fractal and knot theory. These topics have an exceptionally strong appeal to a general audience. I have no experience with FAC, but I doubt that I would consider it as bad as it has been described above. If this article is proposed, count me in. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC is horribly variable. There are a half-dozen editors who read for clarity and content; but if you don't get reviewed by one of them, you will get reviews like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Émile Lemoine, which should be read at length; it is what may be expected in a review by people who know nothing about a subject and most of whom will not do research: much quibbling about punctuation (some of it sound) and a superficial review of grammar and sources. (For example, Mathworld is attacked because it's a website, and G-guy had to come along and reassure them about its connections with Wolfram; no mention of its real defects.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So, no, at least not yet? Jkasd 17:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no point unless someone is willing to go through the article and make sure all the formatting and punctuation and so forth is done correctly. If you looked at the examples I gave you on my talk page, you will see the majority of issues are of that type. If too many of those issues are not taken care of before the nomination, some of the reviewers are liable to be annoyed. --C S (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend anyone thinking about taking an article to FAC participate in reviews for other articles (or at least watch) for a while. There are certainly some folks who may focus on more or less superficial cosmetics. The article may end up better. It may not. The current referencing "standard" is at least one reference per paragraph, which is one reason footnote referencing is more or less standard. I've kept Monty Hall problem (currently under its second WP:FAR!) using Harvard referencing partly so that there's at least one FA not using footnotes. I would further recommend anyone taking any article to FAC possess a near Zen-like ability to absorb criticism without becoming defensive. Taking an article to FAC is to some extent an act of hubris, but succeeding requires putting aside any pride you might have and responding (one way or another) to any actionable suggestion anyone makes. I suspect a FAC nomination from a newbie would be particularly scrutinized. I'm distinctly not saying don't do it, just be aware of what you're in for. Oh, and BTW, if you do nominate it and it does pass, then realize that if you don't babysit it in perpetuity it will eventually degrade to the point that it will be nominated for an FA review and will be de-featured if you don't go through the whole process again. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to hold off for about a month or so. I created a sandbox version to work on and while going through it, realized I am dissatisfied with various aspects of it. So taking some time before the actual nomination to improve it (a la Willow) seems to be a good idea. Here's a couple things that bother me: 1) previously I had not realized (or perhaps forgotten) that there is a well-respected historian, Moritz Epple, that has written several articles (in English) and a book about the history of knot theory (which is unfortunately in German, which I cannot read). From reading one of these articles, it's clear that Listing's role needs to be amplified and clarified, and the interaction between Tait, Thomson, and Maxwell needs to be straightened out. The material on the Tait conjectures could be fruitfully expanded. Some of the knot tabulation history could be improved too (for example, besides the Perko pair someone wrote a paper detailing several mistakes in Conway's knot tables, currently not mentioned in the article). 2) reading the stuff on hyperbolic invariants (which I wrote), I conclude that nobody will understand it. 3) more material could be fruitfully added; for example, a simple Khovanov homology calculation for the trefoil (or hopf link) would go a long way toward showing the historical connection from Conway to one of the currently hottest topics in low-dimensional topology. --C S (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I share other's trepidation about the FA process. Note that action potential has 138 footnotes. Regardless, there are some improvements I'd like to see in any case. I think the lede needs to be reworked so it does not put off lay readers with jargon. The reason why the ends of a string need to be joined deserve a paragraph with illustration. I'd also suggest moving the present history section into a separate History of knot theory article and making paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the lede into a history section for the main article (with appropriate rebalancing, of course). I think a long history section also puts off lay readers. The history article might include photos of key contributer and perhaps some diagrams as well. I also wonder if knot (mathematics) should be merged with the Knot theory article. --agr (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is your last chance...

...to review the problem of Apollonius before it heads off to its Featured Article candidacy. If you have anything to comment on or contribute, to improve or reprove, please let us know — thank you! :) Willow (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. This will be the first FA for a geometry topic! :)

This article looks very well written on my first read. To reiterate things said earlier: it is very important for this wikiproject to support articles on such classical topics. This article brings together different areas of mathematics from the last couple hundred years, and presents a beautiful problem from a couple thousand years ago. The WP:Vital articles places a heavy emphasis on geometry, yet we have no geometry FA's. This is a beautiful article to fix that discrepancy. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done some copyediting, but I've got a few specific questions at Talk:Problem_of_Apollonius#Copyedit_questions_for_the_FA_Team that I'd really appreciate some feedback on from WP:Mathematics people. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pascal's triangle

Originally posted at User talk:Oleg Alexandrov.

Recently, you deleted me edit to pascal's triangle:

Why? how is it not an improvement from the old one:

                                                1
                                             1     1
                                          1     2     1
                                       1     3     3     1
                                    1     4     6     4     1
                                 1     5    10    10     5     1
                              1     6    15    20    15     6     1
                           1     7    21    35    35    21     7     1
                        1     8    28    56    70    56    28     8     1
                     1     9    36    84    126   126   84    36     9     1
                  1    10    45    120   210   252   210   120   45    10     1
               1    11    55    165   330   462   462   330   165   55    11     1
            1    12    66    220   495   792   924   792   495   220   66    12     1
         1    13    78    286   715  1287  1716  1716  1287   715   286   78    13     1
      1    14    91    364  1001  2002  3003  3432  3003  2002  1001   364   91    14     1
   1    15    105  455   1365  3003  5005  6435  6435  5005  3003  1365   455   105   15     1
1    16    120   560  1820  4368  8008  11440 12870 11440 8008  4368  1820   560   120  16     1

? Please give me a good reason why the new one should not replace the old one. And I do not think that memory and/or space is an issue.— Supuhstar * § 18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the plain text triangle easier on the eyes than the table with cells and colors. I don't think it is relevant to color the even terms. I don't think adding the cells makes things align better. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contratry,

1. the coloring of the evens is mentioned further down the article
2. I cannot see how it is not easier on the eyes, as it is easier to read, the rows are labeled, and the numbers are clearly separated.
3. How does it not make thing align better if they are, in fact, perfectly alingned?
4. Finally, these are all opinions, and that is quite bias, which I believe is against one if not a few Wikipedian policies to remove something based on the fact that you simply "find the plain text triangle easier on the eyes" or "don't think adding the cells makes things align better," when many more people might say the exact opposite.

These are facts, not oppinions, and I would like them to be seen as such. — Supuhstar * § 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments here? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Rows 14, 15, 16 are not "perfectly aligned" as I see them in my browser. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the alignment with out tables is better. The bottom rows do not disply correctly here. Thenub314 (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what you are talking about. What browser are you using? I am using IE nd it looks perfect to me.— Supuhstar * § 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I used MS Paint to judge it, and it has a perfect 45° slope frome each corner to the next.— Supuhstar * § 22:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

An advantage of the new table is that the rows are clearly labeled. The alignment is strange; no matter how I adjust the width of my browser I can clearly see irregular staggering along the edges. I don't believe the coloring is an advantage. Not only is it a garish yellow, but the property it is supposed to highlight (approx to sierpinski gasket) isn't particularly important so I would question why the main illustration of Pascal's triangle would need it. This is more aesthetics, but I don't like the boxes and left-centering. I think it shouldn't be difficult to produce an illustration using some illustrator program; it would be neat to have hexagons like a lot of pascal triangle illustrations do. --C S (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I can either fix all those thing you mentioned or make the image you mentioned. which do you think would be best?— Supuhstar * § 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Addendum: I suppose one reason for the ASCII and not having hexagons, fancy boxes, etc., is that it is much more compact. My suggestion of hexagon probably wouldn't be able to clearly show the bottom rows without being incredibly large, but perhaps there is some way of doing it. Supustar's table is already too wide. It would look terrible on a low res system. --C S (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to label the rows. You can easily see the row number based on the second binomial coefficient in each row. The cells are also ugly. The ASCII table does a much better job. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The beauty of a table is that it can be shrunk! I can make it approx. 2/3 or less of the original size!— Supuhstar * § 23:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(P.S. It is very necessary to label the rows. This also bring out the fact that you stated. "ugly" is another oppinion.)

Even if you shrink the table, the lines delimiting the cells will still be there. They make the table look very busy, which is why I prefer the ASCII version. Ozob (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can take the lines away, too. I love tables because they are amazingly versitile and flexible!— Supuhstar * § 23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please make yourself familiar with tables before adding any more comments on what it can or can't do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supuhstar (talk • contribs) 23:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried it on multiple browsers and the table is uniformly badly aligned — the numbers are left-aligned within each rectangular cell rather than centered and then the cells themselves are placed a little off-center: the top single cell is a bit to the right of the dividing line between the next two cells, etc. But more to the point, it's ugly and hard to read. I much prefer the simpler textual version. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know WHAT you guys are seeing, or if you don't have the latest browsers, or what, but this is what I see:

— Supuhstar * § 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This last one looks much better than the first one. But maybe even it is a bit too cluttered. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, could you type that differently? I don't understand.— Supuhstar * § 23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He means that image doesn't look the same as what the rest of us see; it's better, but still not great. here's a screenshot of what I see of your initial post here when I view it in Camino; it's not significantly different when I use Safari instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I use the latest versions of Firefox and Safari and I see basically what David does. It's worse actually if I don't open my browser fullscreen. Shrinking the table would obviously help with that, but I wonder if shrinking may create its own problems. I imagine the cell divisions would make the table look pretty cluttered on a small sized table. --C S (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I see Supuhstar already suggested removing the lines above. Well, doesn't it seem like shrinking and removing the cell dividers, and the color, just brings us back to the ASCII table? Or does it really look that different? --C S (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that, among some of our other articles in Category:Triangles of numbers, Floyd's triangle uses a lightly-formatted table (but a much smaller one), Lozanić's triangle uses ASCII, Rencontres numbers uses TeX, and Stirling numbers of the first kind uses a table without any background colors or dividing lines. I'm not sure there's any great need for making these more uniform, just throwing them out as examples. I think the ASCII in the current Pascal's triangle article is fine, and that redoing it in any of these other ways might end up being as good but is unlikely to be better. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed the discussion, but the plain text triangle looks much better to me. The yellow highlights are distracting and the table formatting reminds me of the bad old days of HTML 3.2. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Using tables purely for formatting purposes is discouraged by WP:accessibility and using color alone is even worse, since we actually have blind users who access our articles with screen readers. I'm not sure, but I suspect some of the appearance differences for the table version are due to font size which would affect not just blind users but users with visual impairments who have to use what you might consider to be ridiculously large font sizes. WP:MOS#Keep markup simple recommends using minimal markup. IMO the question that should be answered here is not what's wrong with the table version, but what's the compelling reason it needs to be a table. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe my display problems were due to the fact the computer lab where I work ha a very low screen resolution (800x600) at most. From home or my laptop it looks fine. The table of plain text always looks good. Thenub314 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think even the plain text version is particularly accessible to blind users, though the text is still easier than the table. But even for those of us not using screen readers, I don't see any reason to use the table version. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be so kind to use article talk pages for questions which are about such specific questions as the layout of a single table! I can see that some people are a bit heated, but moving the discussion here doesn't help anybody. I may be wrong but I think this page is for discussions concerning the WP math community as a whole. Unless there are 5 articles where the same discussion about coloring tables is going one, this one is not of that kind. Thanks and good luck resolving the dispute. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's important to have a place to ask questions like this. Once the conversation is established, then moving it to an article talk page makes perfect sense, and I agree that this thread is ready to move. But I don't want to discourage anyone from posting here to get opinions on a disagreement. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't mean to discourage anybody to post here, but something like "There is a dispute about ... at ..." should more or less suffice to draw the attention of people willing to dive in. (As for the above, btw, instead of coloring, a bold font type may settle the issue). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've made a table to satisfy everybody's wants and needs:

If that isn't reaching the middle ground, I don't know what is.— Supuhstar * § 19:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I just thought I'd comment that I appreciate Supuhstar putting this effort in. It's not so easy to take criticism and regardless of whether the table is used, I hope Supuhstar understands we are not disparaging his/her contributions. At this stage I'm pretty ambivalent about the table; the major issues have been resolved at least to some extend. I wonder about the accessibility issues mentioned above however, but perhaps they are not so serious; I note that Supuhstar's latest table actually renders better on my mobile device than the ASCII table. --C S (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This aligns very badly in my browser on the right edge. And there is no need to count the rows, just track the second binomial coefficient in each row to see its row number. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I brought up the issue of labeling rows, let me point out that the issue of whether or not to label them is not really a mathematical one, but a pedagogical one. Sure it is not mathematically necessary, but it depends on how much you expect the reader to already know or figure out. --C S (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It aligns quite badly in the mozilla firefox browser I'm using now, on my home computer, which runs (some version of) MS Windows. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the diagonals align in Safari 3.0.4. I like the design much better than your previous one, but I think it's much better with a full-size font instead of 75%—I tried it out in the preview and thought it looked very nice. Ozob (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

One configuration that exhibits the alignment issues people are talking about is Firefox on a Windows machine in a narrow (but far from ridiculously narrow) window width. I'll repeat the question I asked above. What is the compelling reason it needs to be a table rather than the far simpler ASCII version using a fixed width font? I've also asked a blind user to comment on this thread. -- Rick Block (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The second table is a vast improvement (IMO) over the first, though I'm perhaps not sure why a table is needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to know what you guys are seeing, but not in these vague terms. If I have solid specific facts, I might be able to fix it.— Supuhstar * § 02:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

See Image:Pascalstriangle Firefox Mac.png (this is Firefox 2.0.0.14 on a Mac OS X 10.3.9 in Classic skin). You haven't responded to the question yet, though. What's wrong with the ASCII version? Every browser has a fixed width font so there aren't any rendering issues. The HTML is far simpler. The Wikisource is far simpler. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the ASCII version to either of the table versions so far. I don't see what the problem is with the ASCII version, that the table versions solve. I find the boxes and colored cells to be distracting and uninformative. So the second table version is better in that regard. However I don't think labeling the rows adds much if any value, and the alignment of the table version is significantly worse for me (Safari 3.1.1, Firefox 2.0.0.14), especially in narrow window widths. Paul August ☎ 16:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I also prefer the ASCII version to both the table versions ... it will work no matter which browser is used. Both the table versions are difficult to use with screen readers. The second is slightly easier, but it's still difficult because of the empty columns (which have to be there. The ASCII version would also be much easier to read on suitably large Refreshable Braille displays. Graham87 01:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I see now that a table won't do, but what about a hi-def image of the table, or a show/hide feature between ASCII and table (and image?) versions with ASCII as the standard? This would probably my best and last compromise. Could somebody please agree with me?— Supuhstar * § 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If an image is to be used, I'm certain better images than that of an html table could be made. I also cannot see why people would want to switch between different versions. As for your "compromise", is your goal to have your table used somehow no matter how inappropriate? Or is it to improve the article? --C S (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, which is why an image was one of my first improvement ideas:

:Alright. I can either fix all those thing you mentioned or make the image you mentioned. which do you think would be best?— Supuhstar * § 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And, yes, my goal is to have your table used, therefore improving the article, and some people might want to see the table rather than the ASCII, perhaps for their visual attraction towards a table, or maybe for educational purposes. It certainly would look better in a classroom presentation (if viewed/printed from IE). I am willing to put my graphical talent to use here, so an image is probably best, as it has the potential to be better than both media of presenting the triangle. What do you say?— Supuhstar * § 03:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WT:MATH versus article talk

Howdy, there has been a lot of article specific traffic here lately, and in some ways that is very good. However, it is important to have article specific discussions archived with the article (on its talk page). Also, large discussions here make it harder for people to watchlist this page.

Does this sound like a reasonable compromise:

• Discussions about specific articles should mostly be carried out on the article talk pages (rather than on user talk, or WT:MATH)
• Editors are encouraged to post a short note here asking for comments
  • The comments should predominantly be on the article talk page
  • New or non-member requests might benefit from one or two short "endorsements", so we know which "advertisements" are worth checking out
• Editors are encouraged to post notes on user talks, if those users are mentioned here
• Editors are encouraged to have discussions here about broader issues affecting multiple articles

This should still encourage the project to collaborate on individual articles, but keeps article discussions with articles, and project discussion with the project. JackSchmidt (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rigorously speaking, you are right. In practice, it is sometimes simpler to get the discussion started here, then move it/continue it at individual articles. I think a laissez-faire approach works best, especially if there are not too many threads here at the same time. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The current project talk page is more of a noticeboard than a talkpage devoted to the interests of the project. Perhaps a Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Noticeboard might help take some of the load off this page. silly rabbit (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 24 hours in a day

Over on WP:AN someone pointed to 24 hours in a day as a page that needed attention. People from here might want to look too. It's packed with unsourced numerology involving Ancient Egyptians, the existence of certain spatial tesselations and the specialness of the number 24. Prod, maybe? I don't see a speedy candidate that fits. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The prod was contested by the article's creator. I have listed it at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 hours in a day‎. silly rabbit (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedied after author !voted delete. Algebraist 09:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Academy associated with Mathematics Year in Berlin

In case anyone hasn't yet seen it: [1] I'm not sure exactly what this is about (I don't read German) but it's obviously something to do with both Wikipedia and Mathematics. There's a program of talks this June 20 and 21 listed on one of the tabs from this page; it's not clear to me whether they'll be in English or German, but any Wikipedians in the area might find it of interest.

Here's my translation. Note in what follows: "Science Year" has been a program from 2000 to 2008 of Germany's National Ministry for Education and Research. "Science Year 2008" focuses on math.

Wikipedia Academy 2008.

Mathematics. Knowledge. Wikipedia.

In Science Year 2008, "Mathematics: everything that counts", Wikimedia Deutschland is organizing this year's Wikipedia Academy in cooperation with the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Science, and supported by the National Ministry for Education and Research.

In lectures, discussions and workshops, the participants will deal comprehensively with Wikipedia and its potential for the (global, reaching a broad audience..."breitenwirksam" is a modern word) presentation of mathematical themes...Information on the Year of Mathematics can be found at jahr-der-mathematik.de.

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In a way I'm amazed. In about November of 2002 when hardly anyone had heard of Wikipedia, then less than two years old, Axel Boldt was the author of most of the several hundred mathematics articles on Wikipedia, and I did some of my first edits. At that time I still had a computer account in the math department at MIT, having had an appointment there that had ended in the middle of August, and I sent an email to all professors, postdocs, and graduate students (I think?) in mathematics there (more than 100 people, maybe?), informing them that such a thing as Wikipedia exists. I think it may have been not long after that that Steven Johnson started editing here, and he was then a graduate student in physics at MIT if I recall correctly, and I think now he's a professor of applied mathematics there. Not long after that, lots of mathematicians became involved. But as recently as 2005, whenever Wikipedia was mentioned in the press, it was accompanied by an explanation of what it is. After Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people in the world in 2006, the media generally assumed everybody knew what Wikipedia is. And today they do, and an older professor recently informed me, apparently assuming I didn't know, that Wikipedia is a very useful thing "even in mathematics" (that's verbatim). And now Academies of Science and National Ministries of Whatever seek Wikipedia's partnership in organizing conferences. This comes not long after I decided to start trying to reacquire my deficient grasp of German after I'd let it atrophy for a long long time. If some wealthy patron were to pay for the trip, maybe I'd want to go to this thing. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The list of presenters is available here. All the titles of the talks are in German except for one, in English, to be given by Bill Casselman. The meeting, in Berlin on June 20 and 21, is free but needs advance registration. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Templates for numbered equations

Does anyone know if there is a template to facilitate the generation of numbered equations in a Wiki document? A pair of templates with roughly the same functionality as the LaTeX \label and \eqref commands would be ideal, but I think I would settle for anything which keeps the numbering consistent within a given document. Does anyone know if such a thing has been tried? If not, is it possible? silly rabbit (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is possible with the present MediaWiki software. I believe that MediaWiki processes each <math> tag separately; since LaTeX needs at least two runs over the whole input to number equations properly, it's impossible to use standard LaTeX formula numbering. It should be possible to change this with enough work on MediaWiki and texvc, but that's not an easy solution. If you really have to label an important equation, you're probably best off calling it (*). Ozob (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant something like a numbering system that works outside the math environment (where ordinary templates have free reign). I guess the question boils down to whether it is possible to increment a counter each time a template is called in a page, and then to affix a label so that the value of the counter at a particular position of the text can be referenced. silly rabbit (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes are possible, so this should be as well -- but I doubt it's easy. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what your looking for, but I have something in my sandbox that might work. Jkasd 14:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's not quite what I had in mind, so I copied your templates over to {{Eqref}} and {{Eqlabel}}. Here is an example:

Template:Eqlabel

The main thing is to be able to label an equation, and then be able to refer to the equation later in a way that will be stable under revision. I hadn't thought of using the external-link counter to generate the numbers attached to the equations, but that does seem to work. Now it would be nice if I could have the back-link display the equation number as well. Right now all I can get is a little carat symbol: Template:Eqref. silly rabbit (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean, I tried fixing this it, but I couldn't come up with anything that worked, so I added a request here. I'm glad you like the EquationRef template, and I agree that it it looks better that way. Jkasd 16:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Composition ring

The article titled composition ring may be a good start, but it lacks references and has only one concrete example, and says nothing about what can be done with the concept. Can anyone add anything? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A second example would be nice. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For any ring R the set of all functions from R to R gives an obvious example. Also subrings closed under composition would give examples, for instance continuous, differentialble, analytic, etc. functions in case of the real or complexes (or even meromorphic functions, which is not a subring). I don't think these "functions of one variable" examples are the most interesting ones from an algebraic point of view though. Formal power series rings do not seem to work, as substitution can only be defined if the series substituted has no constant term. I know one example that I would personally consider interesting, namely the ring of symmetric functions (having infinitely many variables) with so-called plethystic substitution, which amounts infomrally speaking to writing one symmetric function as sum of monomials (with unit coefficients!) and substituting those monomials for the variables of another symmetric function. It is not easy though to define this properly in the presence of negative (or non-integer) coefficients, so I would need to write that plethysm article first… The point is that if there were any useful algebraic theory for composition rings (I did not read the article referenced), it could help to understand plethystic substitution. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I retract meromorphic functions as example, or even rational functions of one variable, since composition cannot be defined when the right factor is constant and the left factor has a pole at that value; a rare case, but enough to break the algebraic construction. By the way, I think the Math Review of the referenced paper provides more material allowing to expand the current article. I am somewhat disturbed by another paper [2] which calls composition ring certain structures (like the zero-preserving functions from a ring to itself, and also power-series examples) that obviously lack a multiplicative identity, implying a different definition of "composition ring" Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two competing definitions of ring (mathematics); one requires multiplicative identity, the other doesn't. I think we have a convention on the subject; I forget what it is. It may be simplest to add a section, especially since it is trivial to adjoin a multiplicative identity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I know there are two definitions of ring, and one school distinguishing "rings" and "rngs", the other speaking of "unitary rings" and "rings". This is annoying enough (I'm sure the wikipedia math articles are not quite consistent in their terminology), but usually not really a problem. I've often seen the remark that it is trivial to adjoin a multiplicative identity, and I disagree it because it is not that trivial (try it without looking up a reference) nor very satifactory (try applying the construction to the rng of even integers, and see if you like the result). But here there is something more serious going on. The references I saw refer to "ring" without specifying which brand they mean, so it is hard to figure out what they are talking about. But the definition at composition ring clearly supposes a multiplicative identity, and even gives an axiom involving it. Whereas the non-examples I mentioned (formal power series and rational function rings) show that the presence of (non-zero) constants form a serious obstruction to defining composition: both formal power series without constant term and zero-preserving rational functions (which in particular have no pole at 0) can be made into composition rngs (without multiplicative unit). Also I am convinced that it is impossible to adjoin a multiplicative unit to these examples (the usual construction might give a ring, but without composition operation defined). I am inclined to believe we should take out the multiplicative unit in the composition ring article (and this discussion should maybe be moved to its talk page). Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• The sources (e.g. Jacobson) say it is trivial, and it is (take the product with Z, with multiplication (m,r)(n, s)= (mn, ms + nr + rs) where m, n are integers; r, s in the ring R) which becomes obvious if written additively.
• I don't see why either of these rng examples doesn't have the identity function as composition identity; the article should explain.
• In any case, why can't those examples just become another section with heading "Composition rngs"? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martingale central limit theorem

Some things are unclear in this article. See Talk:Martingale central limit theorem. Can someone help? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Wright (mathematician): Peer review

Hi, in an effort to get the article "Edward Wright (mathematician)" to Good Article status at some stage, I've requested that it be peer-reviewed. In particular, comments on the article's general readability are welcome. If you would like to comment on how the article may be improved, please visit "Wikipedia:Peer review/Edward Wright (mathematician)/archive1" or leave your comments on the article's talk page. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More help needed with logic articles

I need to ask again for more eyes on logic articles that are being edited by Gregbard, in particular Formal system, Formal language, and Formal interpretation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Given all the time that has been spent arguing with Greg, usually to no one's edification but him, perhaps it's time to file an WP:RFC. While that's a time consuming experience, can anyone convincingly argue that is a worse use of time than the alternative? I'd be happy to make an outside comment Since Greg has put some effort at making a more system-wide effort to combat the "math cabal" (including complaints at ANI), I think it is only wise to get the wider community involved. --C S (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate any involvement by the wider community. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems like Greg is trying to learn, and is attempting to do so by contributing to main space articles, often by contributing what seems like original research. Not sure if RFC is justified, as Greg seems to respond well to requests to discuss and slow down. He is active, however, so a major time commitment is required for any editor working with him. I do see what I believe to be a lot of errors in his contribs. Also, he seems to think the "math people" are out to get him, for whatever reason. Really, it's just that math people are very picky about language and things of that sort - or, at least it seems that way to me. Whatever the case, he has potential to be a very good editor if he'd stop with the OR. Bona fide logicians would be very helpful in these discussions. I am not one. Tparameter (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If we can focus on the content, that would be the most constructive. I am using reliable sources. I would be more than happy to participate in any wider discussion concerning myself or the content. In the final analysis, getting people upset is not a WP policy violation. It's not my intention either. You will find I am quite reasonable, and that I edit, and then discuss at length without a big edit war. I find the threats for RFC distasteful however. I have already recently filed one myself so as to stand as testimony that I work well within the system. The response: "Content disputes happen." Lets all get along. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue here isn't that you never use sources. For example, the most recent issue was partially because you took a sketched footnote from an older text, in which the author (Carnap) explicitly says he is only giving indications of the correct definitions, and then attempted to paraphrase that with sentences such as

"If the class α consists of all of the logical and non-logical signs of a formal language \mathcal{L} and the class ℑ consists of all sentences of \mathcal{L} then a formal language \mathcal{L} can be defined as the ordered pair <α, ℑ>."

The better practice is to avoid using footnotes like that as references for basic definitions. If a topic is actually of widespread interest, there will be a text that treats it thoroughly and in detail. If the only source for an entire topic is a sketched footnote, that's evidence that the topic is not of widespread interest.

But this is just the latest in what is starting to become a pattern. Just a couple days ago, you were trying to add the claim to Logical consequence that it is synonymous with syntactic consequence (which is incorrect, for those who don't know). The reference you provided for that, Hunter's text, doesn't use the term logical consequence at all! This is another example where you misread or misused the source.

Before that, you moved the article model (abstract) to formal interpretation, with no prior discussion and no real evidence that "formal interpretation" is a term that has widespread use among the philosophical logic community. The result on the talk page is that there is still demand for the old article, but now someone will have to rewrite it.

Before that, you created an article interpretation (logic), but you have declined to explain what topic you intended for it to cover, leaving everyone else stumped on the talk page. You also spent a while promoting an apparently unsourced viewpoint about "names" in interpretations.

There is also the article Theorem, where you have also been adding some unusual claims without providing any sources for them, despite being presented with several sources supporting the article as it is currently phrased.

This pattern is what I am concerned about. Each individual page can be resolved through discussion, but there is a limit to the amount that be done at one time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

this is persistent crank behavior cloaked in ostensible "reasonablen-ess". Mct mht (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you referring to Gregbard or CBM? Thanks. Zero sharp (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

seems pretty obvious CBM is a professional. Mct mht (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fequently viewed articles list

I came across Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Frequently viewed/List, and I'm impressed. I'm active in WikiProject Economics and I think a frequently viewed articles list would be very helpful. I imagine there's a good deal of scripting and automation involved. Can anyone who's involved in that let us know what it takes so we can set it up for WP:ECON? Thanks a lot. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Solving fractional equations

I'm not sure what to make of Solving fractional equations. It looks to me like a fairly flagrant case of WP:NOT#TEXT. Moreover the article appears to be based on a book of Vedic mathematics, oddly enough. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with partial fraction? (Perhaps only the assertion that this is treated in the Indian tradition.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Vedic mathematics is already mentioned at partial fraction#Parāvartya Sūtra. How about just making solving fractional equations a redirect? Algebraist 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely contravenes WP:NOTHOWTO. I don't think there is anything in there worth saving. Feeling bold, I went ahead and prodded it. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)