Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Mathematics

message: Character entity is mentioned at Table of mathematical symbols as having something to do with HTML4 - someone knows where else to put the request? Mikez 02:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: HTML4?

message: strong topology is dealt with in the weak topology entry
--Mathmuncher 17:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that exhausts the possible usages, though. Charles Matthews 18:53, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: topology

message: Copyvio problems: the Jean Morlet article should be relisted. Charles Matthews 11:58, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: Minimax theorem has been redirected; but perhaps not very appropriately. Charles Matthews 16:58, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: redirections

message: Regarding the requested article "lp sequence space": there is a section on them in Lp space. So I wanted to make lp sequence space a redirect to Lp space. Unfortunately, it is not possible to have a title start with a lower-case letter. Now I don't know what to do; any suggestions? -- Jitse Niesen 13:41, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  lp sequence space 

message: I have (a) replaced super-almost-huge cardinal since the page was deleted, and (b) put back jet bundle, which was a frivolous (IMHO) redirect. Charles Matthews 09:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reconstructive surgery

message: Is there REALLY a theorem in the study of Probabilities called "Wiener measure"?  I literally laughed myself to tears when I saw this.  Better now than in class, I guess (halfway through a university semester of Intro to Probabilities).
:Errr - try growing up? Charles Matthews 11:28, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do wonder about a lot of these things - can anyone prove these things exist? I think that someone has just been editing putting random mathematical words together for their own amusement. There are also a load which have a name but are rather vague. Definition (mathematics) for example. What did whoever put that there expect? mattbuck 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ..."Wiener measure"? 

message: Why is QM listed under Mathematics and not physics?  Even the most abstract mathematical physics should be listed under physics because real mathematicians can see there is still a lot of hand-waving going on. --ub3rm4th 21:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum Mechanics 

message: Regarding the request
:Lagrange error bound - Unknown definition, featured on question 6(Part c) of the 2004 AP Calculus BC test
added by an anonymous editor: Does anybody know what the question is? My guess is that Lagrange error bound refers to the Lagrange form of the remainder term in Taylor's series (see Taylor's theorem). -- Jitse Niesen 11:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lagrange error bound 

message: I've taken these off the page: they were anyway in the wrong place.
Boundary logic axiomatisations -
J. Spencer-Brown axiomatisation -
W. Bricken axiomatisation -
L. H. Kauffman axiomatisation -
These relate to the laws of form, so-called; which is at best marginal mathematics; and articles on different ways to present the system seem to me over the top. Charles Matthews 16:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Boundary logic

message: What's standard with non-capitalized parts of surnames -- de Bruijn, von Neumann, etc?  My understanding was that de Bruijn goes under "B", von Neumann under "N". I guess the Category tag would have to be a rather unnatural-looking Neumann, John von, but that's OK. --Trovatore 16:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it depends on context: a Dutch phone book would alphabetise me as Sanden, Hugo van der, but the UK phone book puts me at van der Sanden, Hugo. The fact this is the english language WikiPedia is an argument for the latter approach. Hv 10:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have the same kind of issues at List of mathematicians, with the added difficulty that I need to teach a bot to alphabetize automatically. I also eventually settled to van der Sanden, Hugo (listed however at S), but I am still not sure about many Arab names and East Asian. So, if in the future you run into the List of mathematicians, and notice some improper split into "Last name, First name" format, or improper alphabetization, please lend a hand and fix it. :) (My bot does not attempt to change names already formattted in "Last, First" manner, it is concerned only with newer names showing up, so it will not modify your changes.) Oleg Alexandrov 16:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematicians (alphabetization)

message: Is there any reason why the category Discrete mathematics is missing?  The closest existing category I could find was Set theory, which is not quite the same.  Normally, I would just be bold and add it in, but this is a special project page.  Vonkje 11:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. I at least have no qualms about adding another section. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Is there any actual discrete-math topic on which you want to request an article, or are you just planning to put an empty category there?  Not that I mind either way.  But I wouldn't assume there'll be a rush of requests just because you add the section.  --Trovatore 16:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Discrete mathematics can include combinatorics, graph theory, and order theory (at least the finite part), each of which has its own category here.  On the other hand, I don't think of discrete mathematics and set theory as having much in common, because the hard parts of set theory deal with large infinities. --JWWalker (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrete mathematics? 

message: I have removed the following requests from the order theory section:
:Composite Trapeziod Methods - Composite Simpson's Methods - Adaptive Simpson's Methods
They were added by 141.151.173.98. They belong, if anywhere, in the "Numerical analysis" section --Trovatore 22:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Jitse's taken care of this. --Trovatore 22:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: removed misplaced requests

message: Is this even a useful article to want/have? From what I know of CA, isn't Conway's game non-reversible? --PeruvianLlama(spit) 21:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exact phrase has only 18 hits in Google! DFH 20:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A single live cell and no live cells both transition to no live cells. It definitely isn't reversible so I'm fairly sure that that article shouldn't exist.109.150.134.159 (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Conway's game of life in reverse'' 

message: I think that for most mathematical topics, we should have multiple versions for people with different backgrounds.  People can then choose to see either more generalized or more concrete explanations by clicking on links.  Do you guys think this would be worth the community's efforts? --anon
It would be a nightmare to maintain, and I think there is a policy about not having multiple articles on the same topic. The current consensus is to start articles simple, and have them become more complicated as one reads along. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the Simple English Wikipedia, these articles are addressed to lower levels of English and mathematical usage see for example simple:Algebra. --Salix alba (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple Versions

message: Theres a request for E9 (Lie algebra). Does this actually exist, I though E6, E7, E8 were exceptional lie algebras and there is no other example in the sequence? --Salix alba (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an E9, as an affine Lie algbra.  One classification that ends at E8 is that of the finite-dimensional simple complex Lie algebras - if you are prepared to extend the class you're talking about, E9 can make sense! QuantumGroupie 19:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  E9 (Lie algebra) 

message: Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Requested_articles#Bullets_or_no_bullets.2C_dense_vs._sparse.  Dragons flight 18:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RA formatting standards 

message: I have just copied most of the redlinks from the list of lemmas article.  There are some that I could not categorize. DFH 20:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemmas 

message: The page reports that "Perfect forward security" is a requested article in the Cryptography section. I think it's likely that anyone wanting that topic is really after Perfect forward secrecy.
John Y 10:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perfect forward security/secrecy 

message: The previous revert was sensible.  The requested article title was probably the code on Digg which the AACS sent a "cease and desist" about.  It's currently a "hot potato" in the news.  Watchout against further attempts to spread the dispute into Wikipedia. DFH 18:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchout for further attempts at spreading the Digg vs. AACS dispute 

message: I am surprised that 10-polytope does not exist because Simplex, Hypercube, Cross-polytope, 10-simplex, 10-cube and :Category:10-polytopes links to it. I do not create it because I do not have related knowledge and reference. Therefore, I would like to ask somebody to create it. QQ (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''10-polytope''' 

message: I think this requested title is a synonym for Arithmetization of analysis, which already exists as an article. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rigorization of analysis]] 

message: What's the accepted policy on removing entries from the list for which articles have been created? I seem to recall someone making the point that keeping them in the list is helpful, to keep track of progress. (I ask because some have recently been removed from the list.) Artie P.S. (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bluelinks

message: Hello, all.  I was doing a search for the "Teens" because I wanted to know why their naming convention differed from other higher order numbers (ie, thirteen instead of ten-three, compared to forty-three) but I was unable to find any articles on the numbers 13 through 19 inclusive.
I cannot imagine that nobody has ever created such an article.  Before I try to create a stub for it, is there a way to find out if such an article was deleted?
Additionally, what would be the category to request an article on a specific number (or numbers)?  --Bertrc (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers, Specifically the "Teens" 

message: I would like to request a new article introducing the concept of complex numbers. The current article does not introduce them in a way that's accessible to someone who does not already have a great deal of mathematical knowledge. After looking up educational resources elsewhere on the web I found the concept fairly straightforward and logical but I'm not qualified to write it myself.
Just the introduction to 'Complex number' contains 27 links to other articles, of which at least half are similarly dense and inscrutable. As it stands there's no way for someone to develop an understanding of these concepts from reading the wikipedia because there's no starting point, you just wind up clicking between articles full of thick and unelaborated jargon.
FTA: Complex numbers form a closed field somehow with real numbers. OK, so what's a closed field? Don't know, go to the article. OK, it's some type of field, what's a field? Go to the article, and before I've left the introduction I'm wondering what 'quintic relations' are or an 'integral domain' and if I'd only read the wiki I still wouldn't know what a complex number is or what it has to do with anything. Now I'm not averse to learning all this, I'd love to understand it, but clicking from article to article isn't helping. It's frustrating in a way that other areas of the wikipedia aren't, I don't experience this in the physics or computer science sections for example, if understanding one area depends on understanding another one can usually just click through and read the prerequisite article without falling down the rabbit hole. 196.209.232.87 (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article introducing complex numbers

message: Under Set-theoretic topology, one of the requests is L-space (mathematics). Is this the same thing as Lp space? CarrieVS (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No. In Set-theoretic topology, an L-space is a regular space that is hereditarily Lindelöf but not hereditarily separable. An S-space, also requested there, is the other way around. Ntsimp (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  L-space - article already exists? 

message: Requested entries Leopoldt's Spiegelungssatz and Leopoldt reflection theorem already existed at Reflection theorem#Leopoldt's Spiegelungssatz: I have created the redirects.  Deltahedron (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiegelungssatz 

message: There was a request for a page of this name, based on its use in this JEPT article. I looked at the article in question, and in my opinion this is not a statistical term that needs a separate article. As the author and others in pharmacology have used it, it is merely the geometric mean of a set of observed ratios. Nothing special or noteworthy. If anyone disagrees, then please write a stub, or reinstate the request for an article. — Aetheling (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The exact phrase has 51 hits in Google Books and 163 in Google Scholar, not to mention 28,600 in Google Web, mainly relating to its use in pharmacology and going back at least to 1997.  I think that would justify at least a mention.  Deltahedron (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average-fold error (AFE) 

message: For the requested article of Coleman's principle there are different Coleman's with different principles. If a first name was given that would be greatly appreciated. Littlelago123 (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Coleman? 

message: This has been in the uncategorized section since this edit four years ago.  Looking at the draft article here, and noting the word has no hits on ZMATH and none relevant on Google Books, I am inclined to say Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.  Spectral sequence (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the draft article looks like original research. Other than folks using the term as a cute online alias, there is a hit at the Urban dictionary, but this is of course not a reliable source. I'll be bold and remove the entry. (Ah, looks like you have already done so.) --Mark viking (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephinity 

message: I can find no evidence for the existence of this, added in 2007.  Can anyone verify it?  Spectral sequence (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Gawley overlap algorithm 

message: I would like to propose new sections on Field Theory, taking in Galois Theory as a subsection, and Rings, Modules and Algebras.  The current Abstract Algebra section is getting rather long.  Spectral sequence (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sections 

message: The request for Brand quotient has been here since 2008  under Coding Theory.  I can find nothing to suggest that there is such a concept outside marketing: there seems to be nothing in GBooks or ZMATH.  Can anyone provide a reference to show that this concept exists?  Spectral sequence (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Brandt semigroup is intended?  See   Deltahedron (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brand quotient 

message: I have reverted this imposition of new "requirements" on requested articles pending a consensus on their provenance and applicability.  Spectral sequence (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replied on my talk page. Thanks, Matty.007 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is not the right place for a discussion of what happens on this page.  There is a discussion in progress at Wikipedia talk:Requested articles on the general principle.  Spectral sequence (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you posted on my talk page, and here, and on the RA talk. Please decide which one you want to speak at, rather than posting on all three. Thanks, Matty.007 09:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "requirements" 

message: The request for mutation algebra needs to be unpacked.  There are three distinct concepts of mutation algebra — one due to Santilli, an algebra derived from an associative algebra by defining a twisted multiplication x * y = x a y + \lambda y a x; a baric algebra with endomorphism, which is indeed a train algebra; and a homotope of a Jordan algebra.  Deltahedron (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See Mutation (algebra).  Deltahedron (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutation algebra 

message: There seems no special reason to add this number rather than any other, so I'm removing the suggestion pending some pointers that would establish a reason to have an article on it.  By the way, it would seem to be a good practice to adhere to in general, to accompany a suggestion with some further information of the kind.  Deltahedron (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  1058 (number) 

message: I removed Abstract comunitronics, added 2006-09-27T19:10:40Z, as I see no reason to believe it exists: no relevant hits on Google Books or ZMATH.  Deltahedron (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstract comunitronics 

message: I thought that a section on organisations was appropriate, given that there's one on mathematicians.  Deltahedron (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisations 

message: I boldly split out a separate section on this topic as it seems to me that the section of Abstract Algebra is getting overgrown, and that this is an identifiable subtopic.  This has been reverted with the comment don't fine-tune the list.  Very well then, why not, and what if anything should we do about sections that are getting overlong?  Deltahedron (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I get the feeling the subsection is getting too long, but it doesn't have to stay that way in the future: "ideally", we should have very few (or even none) requested articles; at least that's the goal we're aiming at. In other words, lists of this type are maintained in the manner that is different from those in the wikipedia main space; the lists of the latter type are meant to be forever--long live wikipedia! Anyway, I don't insist on my revert. If you really feel stronger about the break-up and in particular if you suspect the subsection will see a further growth in the future, you can go ahead with the break-up. -- Taku (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally the list would be very short indeed, but right now it is as it is.  Abstract algebra is the largest section with 99 entries.  Rings and modules is not represented, but there's even a subsection on Galois theory with 3 items.  It seems to me that breaking out a major topic with 18 entries, which would be in the top third of sections  by length, is an improvement.  Deltahedron (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the breaking-up as an "improvement" in the sense of simplification; you're reducing the number of items in a section by increasing the number of overall sections. It's more of a matter of preference. My view/preference is that something like a subsection with 3 items should be merged into some other section. To elaborate on the point I was making, the important question is who is an audience of this list? Certainly, not general Wikipedia readers not even general Wikipedia editors; it's not their modus operandi to consult the list before they create new articles At least that's not my MO. The point of lists like this is more of a link farm. It's very useful to have red links in some form. Indeed, there are even several user-maintained list of red links. How is this an elaboration on "don't fine-tune"? -- Taku (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

text: (Not that's we're on it). Maybe my position is even antagonistic against lists such as this one; that is, is this page really that useful? There are better ways to do link farm. For example, I think "glossary of such and such" is much a better way to have red links since we can give some context or definitions with a reference in the wikipedia mainspace. Especially in math articles most important thing is to give definitions and generally try to contextualize the concept (e.g., it generalizes this and that). List of prize winner type articles are also better substitutes than the list of requested mathematicians; notability for one thing. -- Taku (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be useful to everybody, but some potential contributors use it to find suggestions for articles to work on, and it is useful to them to be able to navigate it according to their fields of interest and expertise.  If you don't use the list, why the concern of how it is organised?  Deltahedron (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that's the idea and I'm not certainly proposing that we scrap this page. I'm just questioning the effectiveness. And I'm very much interested in the productivity of us as math editors. Generally speaking, anything that is in the wikipedia main page is more useful to the readers than any maintainance-type lists. -- Taku (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite interested in the notion of using the various Glossary pages.  I have been following the practice at this page of trying to support each suggestion with a link to a reliable source that at least mentions the existence of the missing content.  If we allowed ourselves to do that on Glossary pages that might be useful.  Deltahedron (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ring (mathematics)|Rings]] and [[Module (mathematics)|Modules]] 

message: I reverted this edit which changed the redlink Non-commutative plane to a piped link to Quantum_spacetime#Heisenberg_model_spacetimes.  That did not seem to fit with the purpose of this page, which is to list articles that don't exist.  If that's a suitable target for a redirect, then in general either say so on the same line, or create a redirect in article space from Non-commutative plane.  But don't do the latter here, as it doesn't seem to be a particularly good target, since the proposed target paragraph does not mention non-commutative planes at all.  Natural boundary (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining your reversion. The wikilink was meant to be a hint as to what this topic might be about. But I agree, this would be better expressed as a separate comment. I've only ever seen non-commutative planes mentioned in the context of a quantum model of spacetime, but perhaps that is just my physics bias. --Mark viking (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-commutative plane 

message: The Helmut Hofer cited in the IAS announcement is the same who has already an article, co-founder of symplectic topology.--Claude J (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Helmut Hofer

message: I believe this theorem is stated, under the name Bruhat-Tits fixed point theorem, on the page CAT(0) inequality. If nobody objects I will make a redirect for this. jraimbau (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartan&ndash;Tits fixed point theorem 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians. I am in the process of creating an article about the 4D shape, the “cubinder”. It was previously red linked on other articles, and I was surprised to see it was not already an item listed for creation by Wiki Projects Mathematics, as the duocylinder and spheriender are already articles. I require help to improve the draft, as I require more formulae, sources, and additional information to create this article. You can access this page at  User:Darnburn98/Cubinder, please come on over and help improve this article to get into the main space! Darnburn98 (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cubinder" draft needs attention. Unlisted in project. 

message: Do I delete the article from the listing in this Wiki page? Chaos1618 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good question! It would be great for someone to reply, and add this information to the project page. Cheers! Doctormatt (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do I do after creating a requested Article? 

message: If I remember correctly the talks from Khovanskii, I think the name for the article requested should be better either Fewnomial theory, or Theory of fewnomials. I might be wrong, but I think there is not a concept/object called a 'fewnomial'. Instead 'fewnomial theory' is that body of results that bound the number of solutions of polynomial equations by a function depending on the number of monomials appearing in the polynomial, and their many applications. The 'few' referring to the philosophy that when there are few monomials, then the geometry of the solutions is simpler. 
I could attempt starting the article, but wanted first a feedback about the name. Cactus0192837465 (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fewnomial