lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Nesbitt's inequality

message: The only thing notable about this math fact is that it has a name and is a special case of a more storied math fact.  It might be of interest to identify who Nesbitt was and how the inequality got attributed to him or came to circulate online.  Other than that, 8 proofs of this obscure fact is a cut and paste from PDFs for high school kids, not something useful for an encyclopedia. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  undue detail on non-notable math fact 

message: The body of the article is a list of random proofs.  This can be deleted completely and replaced by a citation to the permalink of the current article page.  Maybe one proof and a sketch of other methods can be given in a few sentences.  If there are no objections in the near future I will make this change. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compress the article.
Talk:Noetherian topological space

message: The section on compactness was removed because Noetherian spaces are not necessarily compact.  Indeed, the affine line is Noetherian, but not compact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.125.245 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exercise II.2.13a) of Hartshorne shows that X is Noetherian iff every open subset is (quasi)-compact. In view of this, I will revert your edit for now. If you are discussing a stronger notion of Noetherian, can you please provide a reference? Thanks. RobHar (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Perfect ruler

message: There are multiple definitions of "Perfect ruler". One is Peter Luschny's definition, part of which requires the ruler to measure up to its entire length (be complete) and has no requirement for distances to be unique. Another definition is at PlanetMath, which requires the distances to be unique, but not necessarily complete. However, the process for verifying the example given makes no mention of the uniqueness requirement, even though the example meets it. As a result, I believe that my edits are more appropriate for the "sparse ruler" page and I am changing this page back. Wnmyers (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

message: Is this notion any different than that of a perfect Golomb ruler? I may be being dense, but it seems like they describe the same thing. Cyrapas (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  connection to Golomb rulers
Talk:Fables by source

message: Not to rain on your one-man parade too much, Duggy, but what actually is the point of this page?   The existing character list and pages already contain links to source information for the characters, where known, which makes this utterly redundant.   The formatting is, to be blunt, a mess; it's just a set of headers (some of which contain links, which is against Wikipedia policy) with a few words after each one (in a couple of cases, just one word, making the header as long or longer than the following entry which is more than slightly absurd).   You have no additional information regarding the characters, just a few links to those with their own pages and no links to those without, even those with character list entries.  End result: this really doesn't seem like a necessary addition to the Fables information on Wikipedia.  
Without a very good justification for keeping it and some serious work to improve the quality of the page, I would have to suggest that this page be nominated for deletion --Tailkinker 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still waiting, Duggy - your silence is positively deafening.  --Tailkinker 16:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's redundant... redirected to the more complete list. -JasonAQuest (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?
Talk:Periodic point

message: I want to urge Wikipedia to give a section called "Systematic study" for all technical or academic topics so that one who is interested can read about it. e.g. I know this is realted to functions but I am not sure what other 'text books' I should read to better understand this. Can anybody point me to the text book covering this topic?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.121.106 (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text Book
Talk:Conny Méndez

message: I was doing some research on Enoch and found that this person was one of his disciples. The article needs to write down what was Mendez's views and relationship with Enochian teachings. ADM (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Enoch
Talk:River Roding

message: The river marks much of the boundary between the London Borough of Newham and the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.
No - this was modified in the 1990s and the North Circular is now the main part of the boundary. A small section near the Thames still follows the Roding. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boundaries
Talk:Polymatroid

message: This isn't the way I'm familiar with the term "polymatroid" being used.  Rather a polymatroid is a generalisation of a matroid; if viewed as a rank function the condition that's dropped is that the rank of a set doesn't exceed its cardinality.  I think White's original definition in Combinatorial geometries was of a polymatroid (in the article's sense) for a polymatroid (in my sense), but I don't want to amend this till I have the book in hand again.  4pq1injbok (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

message: The definition is not very helpful. What is x(U), if x is a vector (indexed vector of size |S|, i guess?) and U is a subset of S?--130.149.12.73 (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To make things clear, I have checked the Schrijver book: x is a vector identified with a function S -> |R, where x(U) is defined to be the sum of the vector elements that are also in U. --130.149.12.73 (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition
Talk:Conrad Richter

message: It's awakening land, not hand.
*
*
*
WLU (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awakening Land 

message: It seems improbable that the reissued books should be changed to make them more like the TV adaptation. This should be clarified and substantiated. Doceddi (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "When the trilogy was reissued in 1991 by Ohio University Press, it was a revised edition that incorporated some of these changes."
Talk:Primary ideal

message: I know the proof that
:if the radical of Q is maximal, then Q is primary.
I don't have the reference to confirm this, so I'm putting it for now. (Otherwise, I will forget.) -- Taku (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

message: Is it the case that for every primary ideal I,
if xy is in I, either x^2 or y^2 is?
This is clearly the case for primary ideals in Z. 130.132.173.59 (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposition is trivially false for x=X and y=Y for the primary ideal (X^3, Y^3, XY) in the ring \mathbb Q[X,Y]. Rschwieb (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why bother with radical?
Talk:Essential thrombocythemia

message: There was a note on the bio of Susan Tyrrell that this disease or syndrome caused her to "lose her legs". I was wondering if this meant amputation or whether her legs lost all feeling and she lost the use of her legs. But there is nothing on this page that touches on these kinds of complications. If you know anything about this, can you add this to this page? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: This article is replete with inaccuracies too numerous to attempt to correct. Some examples
*myeloproliferatve disorders are now called myeloproliferative neoplasms.
*upper limit of normal defined as 600,000; next line it's 450,000. 
*Much is known about the basis of the disease: google ref 8.  Somatic mutations result in clones of cells which do not respond to growth modulating signals.
*The problem is not the megakaryocyte: it's one of the precursors.
* "...the major symptoms are bleeding ...Other symptoms are nosebleeds..".
*There have been hundreds of studies in peer reviewed journals on the outcomes of various treatments based on patient variables. To report on the results of one study (ref 9) is misleading and irresponsible.
*Note no references in prognosis section. Every sentence in the section is incorrect.
*No references in pregnancy section. 
*Reference 3 is to an entire chapter of a textbook.
*9 total references: 3 on JAK2,2 on epidemiology, 3 on treatment. Ref 8 is excellent but too complex for a general audience.
*7 edits in 7 years, none substantive, in a rapidly evolving medical area - no one is minding this store. 
IiKkEe (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caution 

message: ... by UK expert doi:10.1111/bjh.13605 JFW | T@lk 12:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "How we treat" 

message: The data is awful: doi:10.7326/M17-0284 JFW | T@lk 22:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antithrombotics 

message: — Assignment last updated by Nicoleschully (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Health Psychology
Talk:Constance Collier

message: The box says she married in 1912 and the body of the article says 1905.  Which date is correct? Goldnpuppy (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of marriage 

message: Sections appear to be copied and pasted from this site:
THE GOLDEN AGE OF BRITISH THEATRE (1880-1920)
by Sydney Higgins
http://www.the-camerino-players.com/britishtheatre/ConstanceCollier.html
Magpie54 (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about source citation
Talk:Promise problem

message: Updating class from Stub to C.  (Original rating was in 2009.) Ott2 (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

message: This sentence doesn't make much sense on it's face and needs to be elaborated on. Comiscuous (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Now the promise is NP-hard to evaluate, yet the promise problem is easy to solve since checking for cycles of size 4 can be done in polynomial time."
Talk:Properly discontinuous action

message: I think this article lacks the following definition as an alternative to all the others. You can find it for example in "Riccardo Benedetti and Carlo Petronio, Lectures on hyperbolic geometry, Universitext, Springer-Verlag, 1992."
T locally compact, Hausdorff, topological space, \Gamma  a group of homeomorphisms: T operates properly discontinuously if for any pair H,K of compact subsets of T the set \Gamma (H,K) = \{ \gamma \in \Gamma : \gamma (K) \cap H \not= \emptyset \}  is finite.
Together with operating freely (\Leftrightarrow \left( y\in \Gamma , x\in T , \gamma (x) = x \Rightarrow \gamma = \text{id} \right)  ) one gets that T / \Gamma  is Hausdorff (B.1.6 in Benedetti's book). [prop B.1.6: free + properly discontinuous <=>  T / \Gamma  Hausdorff and  T \to T / \Gamma  covering mapping <=>  T / \Gamma  Hausdorff and  \forall x\in T: \quad \exists U \quad \text{open}: \quad  \forall \gamma \in \Gamma \setminus \{ \text{id} \} : x\in U \land \gamma U \cap U = \emptyset  ]
If one wants T / \Gamma   to be a manifold, one needs Hausdorff, so it does seem a mayor application to me.
The definitions in the article don't give that the quotient is Hausdorff. See following example. Let T be \mathbb{R}^2\setminus \{(0,0)\}. Let \Gamma = \mathbb{Z}. The operation of  \Gamma  on T is given by 
\mathbb{Z} \to \text{Homeo}(T): z \mapsto \left( T\to T: x\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{2^z}&0\\0&2^z \end{pmatrix} x \right)
 .
The quotient T / \Gamma  is not Hausdorff. Take (0,1)  and (1,0) in T . Take arbitrary neighbourhoods of  (0,1)  and (1,0) in  T / \Gamma . Take the preimage of those sets in T . This is the same as taking open neighbourhoods U_{(0,1)}, U_{(0,1)} in T  and construct \Gamma U_{(0,1)} and \Gamma U_{(1,0)} from them. If you look at z_1 (U_{(0,1)}) and z_2 (U_{(0,1)}) for z_1 \to \infty and  z_2 \to -\infty. You realize that \Gamma U_{(0,1)} and \Gamma U_{(1,0)} intersect. So the neighbourhoods in T / \Gamma  intersect too. They were arbitrary, so the space isn't Hausdorff.
I think, it's worth taking up the definition of properly discontinuous, I quoted above, because it gets rid of this "problem". 
At least, I think we should mention in the section Properly discontinuous action that X /G is not Hausdorff, even though X is. This might make people aware of the complexity of the situation, as I heard there are several sources that claim Hausdorffness for the quotient even though they use a different definition of Properly discontinous.
Thanks for reading -- JanCK (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  further definition : This one allowing: free + properly discontinous yields quotient being manifold
Talk:Constance Holme

message: The winner of the 1921 Prix Femina was actually Raymond Escholier. Constance Holmes, per your own site, has never won the Prix Femina, the proper name for which is the Prix Femina, not the Prix-Femina-Vie Heureuse, though the magazine that organizes the prize was in the past called La Vie Heureuse. I've removed the sentence that makes that claim. 
You may also wish to delete the stub for that prize which is linked to this article. The actual prize can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prix_Femina or, more fully, here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prix_Femina.
-Nicole Lassahn  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.129.108.31 (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone check the accuracy of the facts in this article? 
Talk:Pseudometric space

message: In order for the metric on the equivalence classes to be well defined, doesn't it need to be an infimum over the metric distances between all elements of each equivalence class? Or am I being overly careful?--217.84.30.228 (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Let x,x' \in [x] and y,y' \in [y]. Consider d(x,y). Using just the pseudometric properties of d and the fact that d(x,x')=0 and d(y,y')=0 (by definition), we have d(x,y) \le d(x,y') + d(y',y) = d(x,y') = d(y',x) \le d(y',x') + d(x',x) = d(y',x') = d(x',y') so d(x,y) \le d(x',y'). Repeat the same steps but start with x' and y'. d(x',y') \le d(x',y) + d(y,y') = d(x',y) = d(y,x') \le d(y,x) + d(x,x') = d(y,x) = d(x,y) so d(x',y') \le d(x,y). Those two results imply d(x',y') = d(x,y) so the definition d^*([x],[y])=d(x,y) is well-defined. For what it's worth, it wasn't intuitively obvious to me either. Cheers,Jason Quinn (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  question about the induced metric 

message: In the opening sentence, this is also referred to as a semi-metric space. This is not the usual definition of semi-metric space, if there is a usual definition. For example, http://www.ams.org/journals/proc/1961-012-05/S0002-9939-1961-0125562-9/S0002-9939-1961-0125562-9.pdf shows a definition that lines up with Metric_(mathematics)#Semimetrics. I will remove the offending word, because Wikipedia should try to be consistent, and because it seems this is non-standard.
209.194.136.27 (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-metric space
Talk:Pseudorandom generator

message: In order to understand this page, the normal reader needs much better and simpler explanations than those given on the page.
Another way of saying this is that I feel an expert or a mathematician would understand the page, but if (s)he is an expert, then (s)he would not be here in the first place.
Wikipedian experts and watchers of this page:
* please update and improve this page with citations and explanations! 
* and please react to my statement above! -- jw (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements needed : explanations, citations, references
Talk:Constance Spry

message: The article would be much improved if it could actually say what the Constance Spry style WAS, and what it was about her flower-arranging that made her famous. It doesn't, apart from a solitary glancing hint: there should be a great deal more. HeartofaDog (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Style
Talk:Riesz sequence

message: The references to Planet Math are not useful, because the site seems to be down or malfunctioning. I added the Christensen reference, but it's not much helpful to the phrasing of the present wikipedia article. The Christensen article (pdf linked in the references section) has further references, but I can't access those now, so I'll have to come back to this. Any help on this might be appreciated, as this is my first Wikipedia edit! Tinqtaiya (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Rigidity (mathematics)

message: Added a section on the combinatorial use of the word "rigid", i.e. rigid functions/surjections. I think it fits somewhat (that's why I put it in a new section), but I'm open to the idea of moving this into its own article. --Jordan Mitchell Barrett (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rigid surjection
Talk:Root test

message: Should this article be merged with Cauchy-Hadamard theorem? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think not. Many readers will be looking for how to do a root test, and will not be interested in power series's generally. --editeur24 (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger? 

message: I know this is only a short article but the lead section should summarise the content of the whole article (obviously not in much detail) and not just "tease" the reader.  Conversely the article shouldn't depend on the lead sections.  See WP:LEAD.  Both of these are violated in this article, so I'll try to shake it up a bit, though inevitably it will lead to some duplication. 137.73.127.101 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Please do a few examples and work them out such as what do Σk (km)akzk, or Σk akz3k, or Σk (ak)2zk converge to and or what is the radius of their convergence for k going from 0 to infinity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.194.208 (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an Examples section and one example. I might return and put in more examples; other editors are invited to do so. This is important-- a lot of readers will be looking for how to make use of the root test, and examples are good for that. The best examples would show situations in which the root test is especially useful compared to other tests. --editeur24 (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No examples?  

message: Who is Terrence Tichaona Dobbie and why are they a reference for the limit superior? It was apparently added at 02:34, 12 August 2017. It seems like someone just adding their name or a friend's name. It should be removed. Zteitler (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate reference 

message: In Example 1 of the Example section, the variable i is initially used, although it is replaced by n when applying the root test. I would suggest changing it to n, which is the letter used in the rest of the article, since i can be mistaken by the square root of -1.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:818:EB7B:1900:28ED:6B5C:2F45:CF6 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the variable in Example 1
Talk:Schwartz space

message: This article provokes cognitive dissonance : the different notations ((x^α D^β)f and x^{\alpha} D{\beta} f) don't seem to agree. Is this x^α \times D^β f or something else? Kromsson (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation 

message: If you compare the current description (7/7/09) with the one on planetmath.org (source), it becomes evident, that a "sup" is missing in front of the sumpremum norm, does it not? 84.190.110.27 (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so. Here, it says that for every multi-index, the supremum norm (defined in a different article) of \|f\|_{\alpha,\beta} is finite, and this is correct I believe.  Where do you want to have a "sup"? --Bdmy (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Formula for Schwartz-Space? 

message: 1. I think it is worthy to explain what the D^β means - that it is a differential operator operating β times on f. Also, that α and β are integers.</br>
2. I think it is worthy to note that S is dense in L2, and that that is how the Fourier transform is defined on L2. 
--Rockyrackoon (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: \alpha,\beta are not necessariely integers. They're multiindices, i.e. elements of \mathbb{N}^n. 84.139.145.50 (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 Remakrs

message: The second sentance states "the Fourier transform is an endomorphism on this space", the page on endomorphisms states "An invertible endomorphism of X is called an automorphism", implicitly implying the Fourier transform, in this space, is not, in all cases, invertible. However in the properties section lower down the page Property 4 states "The Fourier transform is a linear isomorphism \mathcal{S} \to \mathcal{S}." Implying the FT is always invertible in this space.
(Comment above was by 131.227.74.40 on 18 May 2010)
: Saying that something is an endomorphism doesn't rule out the possibility that it's an automorphism (just like saying a function is greater than -1 doesn't rule out that it's strictly positive).  But if by your first "implying" you mean the English language sense i.e. "hinting that", then you're right, it's confusing.  I've updated the introduction to say automorphism. Quietbritishjim (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal Inconsistency 

message: There is another meaning of "Schwartz space". Namely, a Schwartz space is a locally convex space satisfying some property (which I don't remember) slightly weaker than that of a nuclear space. The article should at least mention that other meaning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.24.187.196 (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other meaning of Schwartz space
Template talk:Journal-stub

message: Could we rename this template as academic journal stub instead of redirecting to scientific journals? 69.201.182.76 20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This stub is on lots of humanities journals, and having it redirect to the scientific journal stub template is silly. Carcharoth 00:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was moved, not redirected, so the clean-up will have to be by hand. Carcharoth 00:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to change that template to cover academic journals generally but, because I don't know how all of the categorisations work, and I'm not sure what you mean by 'doing the clean-up by hand', I'm going to request that someone else take care of rerouting things. –  SJL 03:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Transposition (mathematics)

message: I propose to reduce this page to a disambiguation page, or (since there is already a disambiguation for "transposition") remove it and replace by a link to cycle (mathematics), since everything mentioned here could be included (if it should not be so already) there or elsewhere (symmetric group for generation by transpositions). Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduce or remove this page
Talk:Truth function

message: On behalf of the general audience, I have replaced the misleading and confusing expression "just in case", with its correct, and easily understood equivalent, "if, and only if" (also, in more technical writing, "if and only if"). The following explains the error:
* Language Log: "Just in Case"
* Southern California Philosophy for philosophy graduate students: "Just in Case".Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Just in case 

message: Is there a problem with the definition of truth function or truth functional? I mean the first sentence says that a truth function gives a truth output value from a truth input value, but later says about propositional logic, propositional logic gives one truth value, which is either truth or false. Is that not contradictory definition???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josemazcorro (talk • contribs) 11:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on definition