Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2004/Sep-Dec

message: In LaTeX markup, does \cdot equal \times?, that is do they represent the same mathmetical function or is it just a center-aligned dot? --  Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   13:08, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
\times: 5 \times 5 = 25 ; \cdot: 5 \cdot 5 = 25 --  Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   13:08, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
: Yes, they are both multiplication. \cdot is more appropriate for advanced texts and \times for beginner level texts. Also \times is used in advanced text to denote "special" kinds of multiplication like vector product or Cartesian product. Gadykozma 14:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  cdot and times 

message: I was extraordinary happy when I saw that subscripts that are not variables should be upright Far from everyone has understood that. Another thing people, even here at Wikipedia, don't put uphright is the differential operator, and I dislike it from the bottom of my heart! ;-) Wouldn't it be a good idea to advocate such "d":s, in integrals and derivatives, too be put upright rather than in italics? - Jolson 17:40, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upright differential operators 

message: Hi guys. Could you review my page Marcinkiewitz theorem for correctness, fullness and especially readability? I tried to write it so that it will be readable (enjoyable?) by any graduate student or equivalent. Thanks Gadykozma 15:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure the name is usually Anglicized as Józef Marcinkiewicz.  I've changed the links accordingly. Terry 06:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry. Gadykozma 14:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages for review 

message: I found Wikipedia:Math 1.0 in a dusty corner.  I think the goals and information needs to be merged with this WikiProject. Please take a look and salvage what you can. -- Netoholic @ 19:45, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
:Well, it's kind of optimistic. It would be great to have the mathematics of the 1990s, and the twenty-noughties even, properly covered here. In many cases that would involve just writing articles with 'long words' in them: red links to concepts that we don't have. So, sometimes it looks like we should just expand coverage of 'core areas', with the long-term goals of getting to the frontier of research. Sometimes I add surveys of topics, to move things ahead; or add isolated (at present) theorems or conjectures. What really does need to happen is that the coverage as a whole stays balanced, even if it's a bit humiliating that the Atiyah-Singer index theorem is 40 years old, and we really still can't state it exactly, yet. Charles Matthews 19:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Math 1.0]] 

message: Looks like the math formula need some work in this article - Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem, figured someone here could fix them. -- Netoholic @ 04:41, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
:Yes, the second had an inequality reversed, thanks. Charles Matthews 07:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem]] 

message: As I have been editing a lot of articles in theoretical computer science lately, I noticed many references to computability logic on the pages. The ones I checked were inserted by User:Kntg. He is also the main editor of the computability logic article. My guess is the real name of the user is Giorgi Japaridze and he is hyping his own stuff . I am unable to decide whether his ideas should be included in wikipedia or not, they seem to be relatively new. What do you think ? MathMartin 18:06, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody responded, I looked into the matter though I do not know that much of either theoretical computer science or Wikipedia policies. As the article on computability logic explains, it is a new theory proposed by Japaridze in 2003 (MathSciNet lists only two papers on computability logic, both by Japaridze and published in 2003 and 2004; I've found no other references). User:Kntg has inserted a lot of references to Japaridze's work: they may be the same person or related (academically). I think there is no harm in having the computability logic article, though the status of the theory should probably be explained better. In my opinion, some links to the computability logic article are over the top (for instance, those at algorithm and computer science). Can somebody please give some further guidance to MathMartin? -- Jitse Niesen 13:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: My main objection are the links he inserted in many computer science articles not directly related to the computability logic article. I will remove them where necessary. I will leave the computability logic article as is, althought I do not think recent research material (2003, 2004) is appropiate for wikipedia inclusion. MathMartin 14:03, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. But of course you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals. See Wikipedia:No original research.
which I understand as saying that once ideas have passed the test of peer review, they are fair game for summarisation on Wikipedia.  So Japaridze's work passes that test. ---- Charles Stewart 22:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your input. I think the business has been handled adequately, so far; the edits have been 'POV', obviously, but the WP response has been 'professional', i.e. proportionate, patient, and not too reactive. Charles Matthews 08:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Computability logic]]

message: I only just noticed this discussion.  I had seen the disproportionately high profile the topic has taken, and wondered if maybe Japaridze was promoting his own material.  A few points:
#While I'm sure that whoever did these edits has some investment, careerwise and/or emotional, in the topic, there are reasons to doubt it is Japaridze, namely whoever it is hasn't done a terribly good job of summarising the topic; I would normally expect a researcher to do a better job than this;
#I don't follow the detail of Japaridze's work myself, but a close colleague of mine does, and it is the real thing: solid research work that is well-motivated and perhaps has the potential to make a real impact;
#The edits are gung-ho and lack perspective but they were not abusive and they have stopped.  Take care when reintroducing appropriate perspective not to throw away perfectly good content: that cure would be worse than the disease. ---- Charles Stewart 21:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. But of course you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals. See Wikipedia:No original research.
which I understand as saying that once ideas have passed the test of peer review, they are fair game for summarisation on Wikipedia.  So Japaridze's work passes that test. ---- Charles Stewart 22:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your input. I think the business has been handled adequately, so far; the edits have been 'POV', obviously, but the WP response has been 'professional', i.e. proportionate, patient, and not too reactive. Charles Matthews 08:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Japaridze and Computability Logic

message: It seems to me that :Category:Topological spaces and List of manifolds largely duplicate one anoher. (More accurately: they would duplicate one another if they were full.) Seems like an unnecessary redundancy. Perhaps we can do as follows: Add :Category:Manifolds as a subcategory of :Category:Topological spaces; list manifolds only there (not in the parent category, per WP:CG), and get rid of List of manifolds. What say you all? —msh210 15:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We have had a similar discussion. Lists are in general more useful and flexible than categories. I don't understand the argument, actually. Redundancy is not a criticism on a wiki. Charles Matthews 17:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Topological spaces]] and [[List of manifolds]] 

message: User:Jim Slim, clearly mathematically literate, has been adding plausible nonsense to general topology and functional analysis page. Please will all look out for 'tweaks' of mathematical articles that are jargon-filled rubbish. There was a whole hoax page. This is an exploratory vandal attack, testing us. Charles Matthews 14:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the user page claims that none of his edits are good faith, I suggest that we don't seek any good addition he has made amidst the rubbish, but rather have an admin block the account and do a blanket automatic revert. BACbKA 14:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I blocked him right after Charles put the note on the page. CryptoDerk 15:27, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
There was another hoax page created recently, which I deleted. Can anyone verify that Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix is genuine? I now think it is suspect. Charles Matthews 22:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I checked it on google (and also "Bayleigh equivalence") and only references I found were copied from wikipedia. I think it's a hoax. Samohyl Jan 00:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We now have an 'admission' of the hoax nature of the page. I am taking this forward at User talk:ExplorerCDT. Charles Matthews 12:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears this isn't the first issue with this user, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ExplorerCDT.  Terry 13:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Jim Slim]] vandal attack

message: This IP number clearly had a close interest in the CNOM page, wikifying it and linking from Arthur Cayley. Later this IP number created the hoax Bryleigh's Theorem page. Other vandal edits (I'm going to ban anyway on the strength of a long track record), including impersonations. Geography: Maryland/North Carolina? I'll do a whois on some of these IPs. Charles Matthews 10:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:199.248.201.253]]

message: I am taking this to vfd.  None of the math-savvy editors here have heard of it.  Possibly some computational experts over in vfd will recognize it, but I doubt it.  No verifiable info given.  No references given.  No google evidence found.  Article is not intelligible.  Sole anon defender is likely orginal author (based on ip location).  Original research at best.  Probable hoax. Michael Ward 18:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "I am taking this to vfd"