Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2007/Jan

message: Could someone take a look here? The article is about Serbian mathematician and is on AfD. TIA Pavel Vozenilek 02:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jasna Mađarević]] 

message: I'm getting very tired of repeatedly reverting Milo Gardner's changes (some under , some under various 172.x.x.x addresses) to Liber Abaci and Egyptian fraction, which I see as...not wrong exactly, but badly written, off-topic, giving undue weight to fringe points of view, and generally damaging to the usefulness and readability of the articles. And I'm a little worried that in doing so I'm becoming too single-minded myself and may be violating WP:OWN. Someone else want to give me a reality check, are his edits really as revert-worthy as I think they are? As an example, here is the diff from a sequence of 11 of his edits that I reverted with the somewhat abrupt summary "rv incomprehensible damage", which he took exception to. Was I too harsh? —David Eppstein 19:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have time to help out now, or in the coming days, but I'll just note that I had quite some problems with Milo on ancient Egyptian mathematics, see the talk page and also my user talk page. He obviously knows quite a bit about that, but he is unable to write it down in a format suitable for Wikipedia; specifically, his contributions are not neutral, but seem to be written in order to push certain theories which are not mainstream (e.g., remainder arithmetic). That's my own opinion, but it matches well with David's observations. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without trying to follow the math, I observe that both articles contain a lot of derivations and many attempts to show the affinity of ancient and modern methods. Although we seem to tolerate a fair number of do-it-yourself derivations in the mathematics pages, strict application of policy would probably say that we should only repeat derivations published by others, and we should only make historical comparisons that have been published by others. On that view, both articles would probably become shorter. As to your specific revert in Liber Abaci, I have no complaints. The bibliography in Egyptian fraction looks huge, with many esoteric entries. Most of these are not cited in the text. It might perhaps be shortened by including a link to an online article with a good bibliography. EdJohnston 21:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Gardner clearly has a lot of expertise on the subject, but his inability to write an intelligible sentence seriously detracts from the value of his contributions.  I don't think you were too harsh.  -- Dominus 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense in [[Liber Abaci]] and [[Egyptian fraction]] 

message: Wikipedia's mathematicians may wish to give their opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books in computational geometry. Michael Hardy 01:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article listed for deletion 

message: Hi, I just nominated Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector to be a Featured article candidate.  Hopefully, you all think that the article is excellent and can support it. ;) But if not, please offer constructive criticisms on how it might be improved, which will be much appreciated.  Thanks very much for your help!  Willow 10:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this not better described as Physics or Astronomy rather than Mathematics? JRSpriggs 05:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector is now FAC

message: I used to be able to reach the article Methods of computing square roots by going through the category :Category:Root-finding algorithms. However, now when I look in that category, the article does not appear on my screen. None the less, the file has not been edited to remove it from the category. Nor has the category been changed in a way that would have that effect. Could this be a new bug in the software for displaying the contents of a category? Help! JRSpriggs 09:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I checked the category just now, the article was there (under M, of course). --KSmrqT 12:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's working now. I removed an external reference to a web page right here that wouldn't respond when I pinged it. I'm not sure if the dead link was the problem, or if the Cyrillic characters displayed on the page were at fault, but the article shows up in the category list now. Oh -- why was the description of this site written in Russian? I can understand linking to foreign language web sites, but I don't understand why the link should be described in a foreign language on this end.  DavidCBryant 12:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: PS to KSmrq – That's weird! I removed the broken link in the article, then sat here a while thinking about another problem before finally writing my response. The problem Spriggs reported was definitely showing up for me before I took the Russian language stuff out of the article. You checked the category while I was sitting here thinking about something else. DavidCBryant 12:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bug? 

message: Monty Hall problem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Gzkn 10:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first reason cited for needing review? "Has one inline citation." Here we go again. --KSmrqT 12:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Monty Hall problem]] 

message: Hello. I have put Florentin Smarandache on articles for deletion. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florentin Smarandache. Please vote. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Florentin Smarandache]] on afd 

message: If anyone is interested, I could use a hand at exponentiation to get the content up to par and resist the efforts of a certain editor to add nonstandard definitions for complex exponentials, roots of unity, etc. CMummert · talk 15:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exponentiation 

message: I can't find a topic for an important branch of lower mathematics: that which is often called commercial math or business math. It is a practical subject, emphasizing simple arithmetic, percentages, and fractions, but also covering things such as banking transactions (writing checks, for example), purchase orders and invoices, consumer and business loans, etc. All of these things have a mathematical component, or at least a computational one, and they are very widely taught in commercial courses around the world. Does this subject have an article? If not, should it? What should it be called? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lou Sander (talk • contribs) 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a perfunctory stub on elementary mathematics. It isn't very good, even as stubs go (specifically, it focuses too much on a particular structure of education). Maybe you'd like to expand it, adding a section for business math? --Trovatore 00:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Better might be a separate article, though. Whichever way it goes, there needs to be a proper name for the subject. I think of it as "business math" or "commercial math," but those names might be old-fashioned, especially the second one. I teach a course in this stuff, and the famous textbook publisher calls it "college math," which I think is neither appropriate nor descriptive. What on earth do we call this important but pedestrian subject?? Lou Sander 01:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, business math might be reasonable as a name for an article about a course (or a "topic" as our English friends, for some odd reason, call it). We have other articles on courses, such as pre-algebra. I guess the question is, if the article is not to be about a course, then what exactly is it about?  I don't see that there's any other real unifying theme to the subject matter under discussion. --Trovatore 01:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The unifying theme is its everyday usefulness in commerce. It is what most people think of when they think of "math." ("Most people" being the working classes, etc.) Lou Sander 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that would fall under Elementary mathematics then, but why restrict it to business only?  Elementary mathematics would have applications in all kinds of things; cooking, carpentry, sports, business, politics, etc.  If you're interested in concentrating just on the business aspect however, you may want to check out the related topics under Business.  It sounds like it would fit under the general topic of business as opposed to mathematics.  I don't know if there's a talk page similar to this one in the Business subject though.  capitalist 07:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: EDIT:  I looked through the Mathematics Subject Classification briefly but couldn't really find a logical place for "business math".  That's why I'm thinking it's more of a business subject than a mathematical one and would be better addressed by that community.  capitalist 07:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (Responding to Lou Sander) What I'm saying is that the difference between mathematics used in everyday commerce, and other mathematics, is not inherent to the subject matter; rather, what you seem to be discussing is one particular set of applications of techniques that have non-business applications as well. So you could have an article called applications of mathematics to business or some such, if that's the topic you're trying to get at. But those mathematical topics are not an inherently businessy sort of math, which is why I wouldn't be enthusiastic about lumping them into a business mathematics article. (Though, as I say, a business math article about the course taught under that name would be reasonable. --Trovatore 07:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Wow, business mathematics came up blue -- wasn't expecting that. It seems to be about the course. --Trovatore 07:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting (and thanks for finding it!). I thought I had looked for business mathematics, but I guess not. The present article doesn't now cover the material I'm referring to, but I'll give a shot at adding it. And it's more than just a course... it's what the vast majority of mankind (IMHO) thinks of as "math" -- arithmetic with commercial applications. Believe it or not, they don't even know what trigonometry is. Lou Sander 12:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added three short paragraphs to business mathematics, thereby (IMHO) plugging a minor hole in our coverage. Lou Sander 13:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No objections to what's there currently. I just want to reiterate the point that we need to keep clear the distinction between "arithmetic with commercial applications" and "commercial applications of arithmetic". The former is not, IMO, an interesting way of categorizing anything; the latter might be. --Trovatore 02:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial / Business Math  

message: I came across this math stub and if anyone at the wikiproject would be interested in cleaning it up a bit. Or I can AFD it if it's not a real thing.Static Universe 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a cleanup, it's a complete rewrite, though there is little to rewrite. I speedied it for now as nonsense. Recreation should not be a problem.Circeus 20:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was kind of understating it calling it "cleanup," but thank you. :) Static Universe 02:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Precision weighted]] 

message: I put Smarandache-Wellin number up for deletion; AfD discussion is here. —David Eppstein 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Smarandache-Wellin number]] 

message: Could someone have a look at this? The article's derived from a popularization, and I'm not even sure this is an exact solution to GR or a piece of topology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've trimmed it right down to something minimally verifiable: can someone who knows something about this expand it? -- The Anome 02:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really a good idea to take all that stuff out? It made some (little) sense before. Now it is a total mystery. JRSpriggs 08:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Misner space]]

message: Margin of error has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Kaldari 06:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Margin of error FAR 

message: The page Opposite (mathematics) might need some attention from any mathematicians. It was found in Special:Ancientpages, and could probably be turned into a redirect, or even deleted. --Montchav 16:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged it into opposite. - grubber 05:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Opposite (mathematics)]] 

message: I've nominated Hectagon, Pentacontagon, and Tetracontagon for deletion since Decemyriagon was deleted. You can find the discussion here. --Sopoforic 02:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few polygons for deletion 

message: I am having an argument with an anon at Triangle about what should be included in that article and what not. Comments would be welcome at Talk:Triangle#What should be included. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triangle 

message: The article Set is up for nomination at the Article Improvement Drive. It's such a core topic in Mathematics that I'm surprised it's not at GA status already. CloudNine 14:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its nomination certainly has my support. Iotha 18:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set at AID 

message: I translated Halley's method from French to English. My source was :fr:Itération de Halley. So I just informally put a link to it in the article, saying "*:fr:Itération de Halley, French original". The original author , asked me (at User talk:JRSpriggs#Halley's method) whether I should not be using a template. Is there a template for giving credit to sources on other Wikipedias? JRSpriggs 07:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that there is such a template. Wikipedia:Translation/*/How-to has a template, but I think that it's meant for coordinating a translation effort, rather than giving credit. --Sopoforic 07:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are the templates Template:German, Template:Italian, Template:Polish, and so on, but it seems there is no template for French yet.  Go figure.  (NB: Template:French redirects to a navbox template.)  See :Category:Interwiki link templates or :Category:Citation templates.  Lunch 07:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I will change it to follow your model, Trovatore. JRSpriggs 12:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving credit for articles translated from the Wikipedia's of other languages 

message: * 
*  (see also )
Uncle G 12:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles listed at Articles for deletion 

message: There is now a "series" field in the  template, as the following example illustrates. CMummert · talk 03:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is good news. I cite a lot of books with  but I think  would work for most of them and this gives a good reason to switch. Thanks! —David Eppstein 05:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Notice by the way the very nice tool available at http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/ which can generate book templates. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  series field in {{tl|cite book}}

message: Due to the recent banning of Dr. Piotr Blass, I have put his primary contribution to mathematics, the Zariski surface up for deletion as its sources are questionable, and the contributions made by Dr. Blass to the page also have some issues. Seeing as barely anyone knows what a Zariski surface is, I am bringing it to attention here to try and see what should be done.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL we edit conflicted while I was composing my own version of this request.  Yes, the creator and main contributor to this article has been sitebanned for persistent vanity and disruption.  Dr. Blass claims to have named the concept of a Zariski surface and we non-mathematicians would would appreciate if specialists weighed in about whether this page meets site standards for retention.  Respectfully, DurovaCharge 01:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be nonsense to delete it. At most it should be semi-protected. Charles Matthews 12:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotr Blass is now on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 24, with a new draft article. --Salix alba (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AfD again. --Salix alba (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I've started a basic fact dump for the "Ulam Quarterly" journal.  As yet, I dont have an opinion on whether the journal would satisfy our notability criteria, but would appreciate any input by academics in the field. John Vandenberg 05:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zariski surfaces 

message: Maybe some of the really elementary articles should be on the watchlists of more mathematicians.  Some idiot added to product rule a proposed "alternate proof".  Those parts of the "alternate proof" that were valid were no different from the proof that was already there.  But after saying f(x) = u(x)v(x) the "alternate proof" section said:
: By hypothesis, f'(x) = u(x)v'(x) + u'(x)v(x),\,
and went on to rely substantially on that "hypothesis".  I deleted it, and rebuked its author rather harshly---I imagine someone's going to accuse me of violating the "assume good faith" rule, but I think anyone who adds what purports to be a mathematical proof to an article should understand that which is secondary-school pupils are expected to learn about what proofs are. Michael Hardy 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  product rule 

message: In logarithm, I wrote:
:: The quantity logb(x) is a function of both b and x, but the term "logarithmic function" in standard usage refers to logb(x) as a function of x while b is fixed.  Thus there is one logarithmic function for each value of the base b (which must be positive and must differ from 1).
:: Viewed in this way, the base-b logarithmic function is the inverse function of the base-b exponential function.
At talk:logarithm someone is disputing this and thinks my impression of what a logarithmic function is must have come from one book which I failed to identify.  Perhaps others here can talk some sense into him (or into me, if need be). Michael Hardy 23:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not disputing that statement.  It is correct.  Please see the Talk:Logarithm. —Mets501 (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  logarithm 

message: Formerly, Quadratic redirected to quadratic equation.
This was inappropriate in many of the contexts that linked to it.  For example, Gyro monorail has "the stability quartic must be factorised into a pair of quadratic terms"; John Muth contains "Herb Simon had shown that with quadratic costs...", and algebraic function has "of a parabola, a quadratic algebraic function in x".  The quadratic equation is not relevant to any of these.
I have made a disambiguation page at quadratic.  But because there are many different, albeit related uses of "quadratic", it would probably be better if the links to the quadratic article were changed to link to more specific meanings: quadratic function, quadratic polynomial, or whatever.
-- Dominus 17:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've categorized the various kinds, as the list was a bit long. Also, I removed some of the entries, as some were redirects to things already in the list. Check it out and see if I have categorized them appropriately. - grubber 23:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just fixed a few of the links to quadratic ... it was fun. From the quadratic page I just hit "What links here" in the "toolbox" and started working through the list. Today I learned, for instance, that the Brits call vacuum tubes "valves". Fascinating! Oh – it just occurred to me. Isn't "quadratic disambiguation" when a dab page points to another dab page? Is there a rule against that?  ;^>  DavidCBryant 13:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Americans called them "valves" also, long ago.  It's because they allow current to pass through in one direction, but not in the other.  -- Dominus 21:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That kind of work can be very satisfying sometimes.  A while back I went around and disambiguated all the links to Red Hook.  Most of them were actually referring to Red Hook, Brooklyn, but not all.  I found out that H.P. Lovecraft lived in Red Hook, Brooklyn.  What a surprise! -- Dominus 21:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a rule against a disambiguation page pointing to another disambiguation page? Not that I know of. I have seen it once or twice. Some words are used for so many different things that you need to have an overall disambiguation page with many entries and one of them points to another disambiguation page which separates the mathematical usages. JRSpriggs 08:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is odd. I was working through "What links here" when I ran across this dab page, which points to this dab page. It's self-referential (that is, quadratic itself is an example of second-order disambiguation). Did somebody do that on purpose?  ;^>  DavidCBryant 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Good job all, the nicest disambig page I've seen in a long while. --Salix alba (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quadratic disambiguation