Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

message: I noticed that in the Formal criteria for adjoint functors it says that "for simplicity ignoring the set-theoretic issues". Does this refer to axiom of choice? Also, it seems that axiom of choice can be avoided by introducing a concept called anafunctor. It would be great if you could give me some advice or help with the draft (Draft:Anafunctor). SilverMatsu (talk) 05:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is not appropriate to ignore set theoretic issues in the statement of the theorem, because one of the conditions is essentially a set theoretic smallness condition already (it holds trivially in small categories for instance). MacLane states the theorem for (small-)complete categories with small hom sets.  As far as I am aware, the proof uses choice. I don't know about anafunctors. Tito Omburo (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your advice. I think so, too. I think the theorem (SAFT) requires an axiom of choice. By the way, I'm thinking about whether to add :Category: Axiom of choice to a new draft. --SilverMatsu (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Also, Roberts (2011) says that, the etymology of anafunctor is an analogy of the biological terms anaphase/prophase. By the way, wiktionary has an wikt:anafunctor, and wikipedia has a profunctor. --SilverMatsu (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for sharing. That's an interesting remark. Tito Omburo (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjoint functor theorem, axiom of choice and anafunctor 

message: I think it's at a point where only some tidying remains, but I'm not sure when I'll have time to do that tidying. XOR'easter (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[0.999...]] still at [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/0.999.../archive2|Featured Article review]] 

message: Request for an esteemed colleague from WikiProject Mathematics to please review and find a source for Degenerate bilinear form, which has been tagged as "Unreferenced" since August 2008. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this has been fixed; surely though the right title for this topic is Nondegenerate bilinear form?  They're the important ones .... 64.26.99.248 (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing there is a stupid Wikipedia reason for this bizarre state of affairs. Tito Omburo (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason is probably history rather than policy. IAC, rather than renaming the article it might be better to merge it into Bilinear form with  in the redirects. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable. XOR'easter (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Degenerate bilinear form]] is unreferenced 

message: This seems sensible, doesn't it?  IntGrah (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, maybe not.  The benefit of having two separate pages is that it makes it clear that the notions are different. This also allows other pages that reference these concepts to reference specifically the definition they need and thereby to minimize possible confusion.  Note also that each of these two pages has "Not to be confused with ..." link at the top, and also shows the contrast with the other notion.  But I can see that this could be debated. PatrickR2 (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I think they should not be merged, since they are different concepts.  Note that the Springer EoM also has separate articles for the concepts.  Tito Omburo (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I was hoping that one concept would just be described in a sentence in another article, like Weighted graph in Graph, but I see otherwise now. IntGrah (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  The two concepts are importantly rather different, especially in applications of measure theory (e.g., probability and dynamics).  Tito Omburo (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree w/Tito, Patrick. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Measurable space]] into [[Measure space]] 

message: A few statements at 0#Computer science need support from manuals, textbooks, and/or histories. I know math people aren't necessarily computer people, but it seemed a good idea to raise the signal here too. XOR'easter (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited statements at [[0#Computer science]] 

message: See this blog post. SilverMatsu (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doi will be added to the Theory and Applications of Categories