Mathematics desk
< August 23	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 24[edit]

Maths Difficulty[edit]

This may not be the right place to ask, but I believe that very complex maths is being discussed here, like calculus and complex numbers. This is a pain to less advanced people, like me. What I want to know is, this. How can this situation be improved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.106.33 (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One way to improve the situation of "too much complex math discussed here" is to start asking about other (less complex/copmplicated) kinds of math. Feel free to ask questions about math at any level, and consider asking your friends to as well. (They should of course still be legitimate questions that fit the guidelines of the desk). Another thing to keep in mind though, is that even very simple questions can require very complicated machinery to answer rigorously. You are also free to make requests, such as "please explain at a 5th grade level if possible. Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that SemanticMantis provides some very sound advice. I do hope that the anonymous poster of the original query can accept that the position in which he finds himself is only one, and that there are lots of other people who have their own puzzlements and thus expectations of this reference desk that are quite different from his own. The best way to make the reference desk serve a wide and very diverse audience is to submit a wide and very diverse range of questions. In general, most people who respond to the questions here tend to aim their responses at roughly the same level of mathematical sophistication as appeared in the question.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right — there are two sorts of "pain" the OP might be talking about. One is, if the mathematics being discussed is something he potentially could understand at his current level of knowledge and understanding, but is unnecessarily expressed in language that excludes him. This is a genuine issue and answerers should keep int in mind.

But what he seems to have actually said, read literally, is that he doesn't want advanced math to be discussed here because he doesn't get it. If that's what he meant, the answer is, too bloody bad. If you want to avoid this sort of "pain", then either learn the math necessary to get it, or stop reading the page. --Trovatore (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore: I find your first definition of pain very familiar. I remember during my PhD, my supervisor suggested I read a certain paper. I did and I didn't really get it. Years on, I'd been doing some recreational mathematics and found that my work had started to overlap with this suggested paper. I'd created my own, much cruder, notation for a lot of the stuff in the first few pages. The ideas weren't beyond me, but the wall of notation was. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of times, the best strategy for reading a paper is not to try to follow every detail of the proof offered, but to try to figure out what the idea is, and then come up with your own proof along the same lines. If it works, you have much better insight into the problem, and many times it's a lot easier too. Of course, it doesn't always work. --Trovatore (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by "here":

A) The Math Ref Desk. We could divide it into two pages, one for basic Q's and one for advanced, but I don't see the need, so long as people answering simple math Q's don't insult the poster or talk over his head. For example, if somebody asks how to find the distance between two points, give the formula for 2D (X,Y) and 3D (X,Y,Z) coords, don't go into higher dimensions and other coordinate systems, unless asked to do so.

B) Wikipedia articles. Yes, I agree that this is a major problem. I think the only solution is to exclude those with a PhD in math from editing certain sections of the article, like the introduction section. They can take a easily understandable article and make it utterly incomprehensible to anyone lacking a math PhD. They can still include all the complex parts, but add it after the intro. Weighted mean is an article which I helped write which seems to get this balance right, to me. Another approach is to put simple versions of each article at Simple Wikipedia, and link to them. StuRat (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many Wikipedia mathematics articles (actually, most of the ones I have much interest in) are about subjects that inherently require a strong mathematics background. The introduction needs to be made as accessible as reasonably possible (actually, the whole article does, but it's especially important in the intro). But sometimes "as accessible as reasonably possible" is still "not very accessible". --Trovatore (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I think for some of the deeper Mathematical (and maybe physics and chemistry) that a good idea might be to have, in addition to a "see also" section of links, a "understand this first" section of links. (the other option would be a template which goes at the top of the article with the "understand this first" links.Naraht (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. My math background is evidently stronger than the OP's (I use calculus and complex numbers in my hobbies!) but many articles, e.g. in advanced group theory, leave me hopelessly at sea. —Tamfang (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That idea has been discussed — search the archives at WT:WPM for "prerequisites". It never got much traction, I think mostly for "WP is not a textbook" reasons. --Trovatore (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to say that I, like many others, like to read all the existing questions first before posting my own. When they are as diffcult as they are, I get really annoyed. I might get a maths PHD, but at the current time, I don't really know what some of the articles mean. I would suggest that a section for beginners is to be made in WP. This would help a lot of people along with links to simple wikipedia. 92.0.106.33 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that you read the other questions. If you "like" to do so, great, but I don't see how that preference imposes any duty on anyone else. It's like going into a restaurant and saying, "I'd like to eat everything on the menu, except you serve some dishes that I can't eat, so please remove those, or start another restaurant that doesn't serve them". --Trovatore (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I should not be forced to choke down the impossible. I believe that

\Pi (s-1)\zeta (s)=\int \limits _{0}^{\infty }{\frac {x^{s-1}dx}{e^{x}-1}}

passes for question asking material here. I have not a clue what that means. I think that people who put this rubbish on here should be punished. 92.0.106.33 (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this is exactly your error — you are not forced to. If a question is incomprehensible to you, you have two options: One, you can ignore it and go onto another one, or two, you can work harder at comprehending it or gaining the background necessary to comprehend it. You seem to be choosing option three; namely, whine about how people shouldn't ask questions that are too hard for you. --Trovatore (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do remember that it is not just me, but many others. Yes, they may choose not to read it, but is is quite hard to ignore, as they can be quite inquisitive and ask "what does that mean?". I may be right in saying that not everyone can understand these things, but, put quite simply, I believe that more should be done to allow these people to learn how these questions work. The answerers don't explain it, they just try to answer as quickly as possible and not care about others. The equation I posted above, as I had said, is one that I cannot comprehend. What the answers could have done is break it down and spend a lot of time explaining it in detail. 92.0.106.33 (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is something on this page that you don't understand but would like to understand, you could just ask about that specific case. Maybe somebody can give you a reasonably elementary answer. But I don't see why people shouldn't give a quick high-level answer to a high-level question. While the reference desk is public, it still is a place where somebody posts a question, hoping for an answer that the poster will understand. It is not reasonable to expect that every casual visitor will also understand the answer. But if they have a question about it, they can ask it. —Kusma (t·c) 17:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you repeat the same argument over and over again, as if it somehow had some merit in the first place? If you want to learn some high-level mathematics, it's going to take some level of commitment on your part (typically through an undergraduate mathematics education), and you can use this resource to ask questions to help your understanding as you go along. You cannot expect every answer to every question to pander to your level of understanding. Suppose you asked a question on here, and someone decided to answer it at a kindergarten level. Wouldn't you be a little annoyed? --COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try to understand that the question-asker is NOT the only person who will read the page. I would also like to say that I am Scottish and am not sure how the maths degrees work there. I have it in standard grade. I must remind all wikipedians not to make assumptions about the questions-asker and that if the answerer believes that they are so good at maths, then they should attempt to explain some of it to me. I am only in 5th year. I need better explanations. 92.0.120.167 (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is no. We are not going to accommodate you in the way you request. Your choices are either accept that and work around it, or go away. --Trovatore (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the level of mathematics that you are studying exactly the right level of mathematics for other readers of this page? That seems to be what you are suggesting, and I think it is quite literally self-centered. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would some uninvolved editor please hat this? There is no mathematical question here; should have been done long ago. --Trovatore (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys are so good at maths then why don't you try a few questions:

How does integration work?
How do I obtain a maths PHD?
How do I use complex numbers?

As you can see, I am quite inquisitive. I am once again in 5th year, my penultimate year of school, and am looking at maths and physics qualifications (preferably PHDs) 92.0.120.167 (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are good questions. May I suggest that you ask them as (three separate) new questions, rather than putting them at the bottom of a massive discussion? --Trovatore (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are wanting to learn a bit of maths I'd have thought forums like Dr Math, searching the web or books in your library or videos on youtube would be better than looking here, this is a reference work for which this page is a reference desk. I'm a bit surprised you don't know about calculus or complex numbers yet but then again I mostly ignored school and learnt stuff myself so I'm not really au fait with what they expect at any given age. Dmcq (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To get a PhD, you have to convice a committee including five or so professors that you deserve one. This might involve passing exams, writing a dissertation, or bribery. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could get awarded one for research like Ramanujan but people like that don't crop up often. Dmcq (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I, a 5th year have been undertaught at my school. I would like some help with things like calculus and complex numbers. I am not aware of how one obtains one's PhD or other qualification. I will start by finishing school and doing well in my exams. I am not sure what to do next, but I guarantee that maths and physics will be involved in it. I don't even know what college to go to. I have Kilmarnock college, Cumnock Community College, Ayr college and the University of The West of Scotland near to my residence of Cumnock. I also need more knowledge of quantum theory too. 92.0.105.38 (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you don't need "help" with calculus and complex numbers. You need to learn the subjects of calculus and complex numbers. What you need it so read books on those subjects (and I'm sure people will be happy to give you book recommendations). It is not reasonable to expect random people on the internet to give you private lessons for free. And the reference desk is definitely not the place for it, calculus is an elementary subject and if a question involves calculus than it doesn't need to be explained any more than addition needs to be explained ("If Billy and Sally each have an apple, then that's - 2 apples!"). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]