Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2006/Apr

message: Hi all.  I saw there wasn't any article on parametric coords.  I am willing to create one, if needed.  However, since it might be the same thing as curvilinear coordinates, I've just put in a redirect for now.  I've asked the question on Talk:Curvilinear coordinates, but so far nobody can tell me if they are identical, or just related, topics.  Please take a look and post your conclusions at that talk page. StuRat 21:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone does write the article, please don't use that name, but spell "coordinates" out in full. Ryan Reich 22:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  I do like to add redirects from short names to full names, though.  This allows users to enter shorter words like "coords", "lab", "gym", etc., which are both more convenient and less likely to contain spelling errors. StuRat 02:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parametric coordinates really require a parameterisation, for example a parameterised curve or surface. For that reason I've now made parametric coords redirect to parametric equation. --Salix alba (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but not all parametric equations describe a parametric curve or surface.  Therefore I feel that an article specific to this application of parametric equations is justified. StuRat 02:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parametric coords 

message: Could someone take a look at Direct logic? I see some potential problems with this, given who the author is. —Ruud 16:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, it looks like this is original research and doesn't belong.  How does one tag an article to indicate as much?Lunch 18:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Direct logic]] 

message: While I am not sure on what to do about the current dispute at field (mathematics), which is centered on the use of "field" at the Japanese Wikipedia, DYLAN LENNON now claims that a finite division ring is not the same as a finite field, and removed the interwiki link from our "finite field" to the Japanese "finite division ring". Comments welcome at talk:finite field. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYLAN and finite fields 

message: Well, the RfC and all our pleas seem to have no effect on his behavior. I blocked both accounts indefinitely, and wrote a note at Wikipedia:Administrators'  noticeboard/Incidents#Indef block of WAREL/DYLAN LENNON. 
This will generate serious questioning, as we are talking about an indefinite block, no less, so your comments there are appreciated, to make the case that this is a community-backed decision. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAREL/DYLAN indef blocked 

message: Should formal Laurent series redirect to Laurent series (as it currently does) or to formal power series (my preference)? Dmharvey 18:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think formal power series is better, especially since the doubly infinite Laurent series cannot be treated formally (with rare exceptions).  — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the section on formal laurent series in the article Laurent series should be merged into the corresponding section of formal power series. -lethe talk [ +] 18:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Dmharvey 17:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  formal laurent series 

message: I've been trying out the new cite.php tool, i.e. with the <ref> and </references> tags. See for example quasi-finite field. But it looks a bit silly there, because I have two different page numbers for the same book. Does anyone know a slicker way to handle this? Dmharvey 18:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David, I've made an edit at quasi-finite field, to suggest another way of handling your situation. However, I don't really like the look of the cite tool, I prefer the rf/ent templates, so I've also  made a second edit using the  rf/ent templates, to see if you like the way they look better. Paul August ☎ 21:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I gotta admit I don't like any of the options very much. What I really want is something like LaTeX's \cite command, i.e. each reference gets e.g. a number or sequence of letters, and then you can specify the page number inline. So for example it would read like "according to [Se, p.198] you can do ..., or you can see later on [Se, p.204] suggests blah blah blah", and then in the references it just has one item, "[Se] Serre, Jean-Pierre, Local fields, etc". But it doesn't look like any of the automated mechanisms allow one to do this. Dmharvey 02:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  references: multiple page numbers for same book 

message: I have recently created some material in the approximation theory
page, relating to polynomial approximations to special functions.  This
is related to function approximation, Chebyshev polynomials,
and polynomial interpolation, but in ways that I'm not clear about.
I'm not an expert in the taxonomy of this area of mathematics, only in
the specific things about which I wrote.  In particular, I know that
there is a field of interpolating polynomials through given data points,
and that Chebyshev polynomials (and their roots) are involved in this.
I can't believe that "approximation theory" is just
about Remes' algorithm or use of Fourier/Chebyshev analysis to make optimal
polynomials.
So this whole area may be somewhat messed up, and my material might be
in the wrong place.  Would someone who knows his/her way around in this
area be willing to take a look and move things around?
William Ackerman 00:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solicit help organizing topics relating to approximation theory

message: This is getting interesting: two socks at the same time:  . And an anonymous edit: .  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How sure do we have to be that these are him before we permban the socks?  That's my inclination. -lethe talk [ +] 20:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that on-sight permabanning of socks was reserved to Willy on Wheels-level offenders. Isopropyl 20:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oleg, just do it. We'll pick up the pieces later. We can always apologize to anyone blocked by mistake; it's not like any huge permanent damage is done. --Trovatore 20:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and by the way, this last incident should more than justify restoring the permanent ban on WAREL. --Trovatore 20:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone made the comment that WAREL isn't learning anything from these repeated blocks. I think that if we keep unblocking him and he continues along the same path, we're the ones who aren't learning anything. Those who are about to block, we salute you. Isopropyl 21:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I asked Lethe to shorten the block for a day, as IP addresses can be shared, unlike user names. On the more general problem, I start thinking that WAREL may actually not only be a highly arrogant user but also have some kind of compulsive disorder. In the worst case scenario he will play a cat and mouse game making new accounts just as we block them. No easy solution in sight. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting common line of thought there. I almost posted a comment that when the permanent ban is put into place, a suggestion to seek psychiatric help should be posted on his user page. That would make it clear we have WAREL's interest at heart. On a practical matter, what IP addresses have the named accounts used by WAREL had? Elroch 00:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through the "contributions" of 64.213.188.94, from day one I see lots of silly vandalism and trolling of the worst sort, interspersed by occasional relatively lucid postings on the very mathematics subjects WAREL and DYLAN LENNON like to post, such as Perfect number and Masahiko Fujiwara. I also see some fascination with one Doyle Farr, apparently a black student at Franklin Pierce College. Whether shared IP or not, I can't say that a permanent ban would be a big loss to Wikipedia. LambiamTalk 04:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this anecdotal evidence makes a very strong case that the next person who tries to edit from that IP won't be a legitimate, good-faith contributor. Let's keep our responses targeted. OTOH I think immediate permanent blocks should be imposed on User:DEWEY and User:KOJIN and future recognizable sockpuppets as they appear. If we make a mistake it can always be corrected. --Trovatore 16:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAREL is back 

message: At Talk: Length of an arc I added a comment arguing that the title ought to be Length of a curve (presently a redirect to Length of an arc). Please discuss there if you care (one way or another). LambiamTalk 03:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of an "arc" or of a "curve"? 

message: Number systems in mathematics.	
Basic                         	
\mathbb{N}\sub\mathbb{Z}\sub\mathbb{Q}\sub\mathbb{R}\sub\mathbb{C}
Natural numbers \mathbb{N} 
Negative numbers 
Integers \mathbb{Z} 
Rational numbers \mathbb{Q} 
Irrational numbers 
Real numbers \mathbb{R} 
Imaginary numbers 
Complex numbers \mathbb{C} 
Algebraic numbers 
Transcendental numbers 
Transfinite numbers 
Split-complex numbers \mathbb{R}^{1,1}	
Complex extensions            	
Bicomplex numbers 
Hypercomplex numbers 
Quaternions \mathbb{H} 
Octonions 
Sedenions  
Superreal numbers 
Hyperreal numbers 
Surreal numbers	
Others                        	
Nominal numbers 
Serial numbers  
Ordinal numbers 
Cardinal numbers 
Prime numbers 
p-adic numbers 
Constructible numbers 
Computable numbers 
Integer sequences 
Mathematical constants 
Large numbers 
Pi π = 3.141592654... 
e = 2.718281828... 
Imaginary unit  i^2 = -1 
Infinity ∞	
Here is the  template. Today is the second instance when somebody felt templated to insert it in all the articles linked in there (first time was a while ago).  I feel this is the case when being in :Category:Numbers is enough for these articles, and the gain given by this template in all articles is not offset by the huge size of the template and the distraction it causes on the page. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is certainly sort of obtrusive visually. On the other hand these are all articles aimed at a pretty elementary audience. Maybe it is useful for them to have this reminder of how the various sets of numbers fit together. Could we find some of them to ask? --Trovatore 07:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This is an absurd template. How many times and places do we need to know about, say sedenions? Perhaps if the template limited itself to the basics it might be justifiable. --KSmrqT 08:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It's absurd.  I'm very skeptical as to its utility even for the "elementary audience" Mike mentions.  I would think an appropriately placed link to number systems or whatever would be better; I think we all know how to keep a brower window or tab open :-) --C S (Talk) 08:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the sort of thing I made  for. Septentrionalis 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {numbers} 

message: I'm a bit miffed that my original post on this topic seems to have been blown by without comment. I'm not an expert and I really don't know the answer. 
Please see Jim Loy's angle trisection page. He shows a few methods using forbidden tools; I call your attention to the so-called tomahawk and to the movable, marked carpenter's square. Is the use of these tools not equivalent to neusis? John Reid 01:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's just that no-one here knows the answer. Dmharvey 02:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A curious fact of life in posting to forums like this is the extreme differences in volumes of responses questions can provoke, differences which sometimes seem to be independent of the merit of the questions. The answer to your question requires technical study of the tools in question. The general situation is that we know compass-and-straightedge constructions only allow solutions to linear and quadratic equations; the additional tools allow solutions to broader classes of equations such as cubics. This much every serious mathematician knows. However, it may not be obvious which additional classes any particular tool admits. For example, we know a number of different tools that can be shown sufficient to solve cubics (hence permit trisection); but that does not mean they are equivalent in power. So my short answer to your question is, "I don't know." If everyone who does not know the answer to a question posts a statement to that effect, we are overwhelmed with useless noise; therefore the convention is that only those who know (or, sigh, think they know) post — which in this case may be none of our regular readers. After a respectful amount of time with no response, it is acceptable to ask a followup question. A good followup: "Is there a problem with my question?" :-D --KSmrqT 03:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the movable square is equivalent to neusis; I think, but am less certain, that the tomahawk is. I have no proof of either right now, which is why I haven't posted. Septentrionalis 03:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neusis again 

message: Before I continue the edit war which has developed between "Jagged 85" and myself (with some others), I would like to bring the case to our community.  Jagged 85 has been adding (what I consider) irrelevant material to several articles in the "Cardinal numbers" category (and I think elsewhere as well).  I removed it once.  Now he has put it back.  This inspite of the fact that there is an already existing article on Indian mathematics to which he has been adding.  See Talk:Cardinal number for more information.  In my opinion, he is just cluttering up these articles and making them hard to read.  There are no mathematical theorems or hard facts in his writing, just attempts to grab credit for the Jaina.  JRSpriggs 03:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is a bit of an ongoing problem, and not just about the Jains, but about ancient Indian mathematics in general. Jag, and maybe a couple of others, repeatedly make "anti-Eurocentric" claims that strike me as having a political axe to grind. See especially Kerala school#Possible transmission of Keralese mathematics to Europe, which consists mostly of speculation that European mathematicians could have learned of these claimed precedents and thus may not really have made their discoveries independently. Now, he does have lots of sources; my guess is that they have a political agenda as well, but that's speculation on my part, given that I haven't seen the sources. --Trovatore 04:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A political agenda won't surprise me. I recall the dispute at Arabic numerals, which was moved to Hindu-Arabic numerals and back in total 12 times hist, and see also Talk:Arabic numerals. That not meaning to say that I have anything against India or its great contributions. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war over Jaina "mathematics" 

message: Please look at:
: Template:Algebra-stub
I've deleted the "stub" notice from a few dozen of these.  Please help.  Click on one.  If it's too long to be called a "stub", deleted the  notice.  Start at the bottom, since I started from the top, so the ones NOW near the top have been dealt with.  Some are AMAZINGLY long articles, and are called "stubs".  Others are fairly short and could use more material but are clearly too long to be called stubs.
Then we can go on to "geometry-stub", etc., etc., etc., etc.......... Michael Hardy 03:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked every article in the category . --MarSch 11:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Long, long, long, long, LONG "stub" articles!

message: Debate is getting a bit heated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical integer and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Radical integer, with one contributor arguing that it's not within our purview as editors, even if experts, to judge the reliability of anything written in Weisstein's encyclopedia, unless some other source directly contradicts it.
That idea strikes me as a recipe for disaster. Weisstein's work has so much overlap with our project, and is so full of idiosyncracies, that we have to view with caution any article on which he's the only source. If our hands are tied on this, the quality of WP math articles is at risk. Please come and state your views. --Trovatore 21:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, as knowledgable editors, we have to use some discretion about what sources are allowable for original material to be included; otherwise we will have to allow all kinds of crackpot material.  However, I don't really see a need to take a hardline stance about Weisstein.  We can also use our discretion about what of his meanderings should be allowed, which is why I haven't really entered into that debate. -lethe talk [ +] 00:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, of course. I'm not saying we should automatically reject material just because it comes from him. I'm just saying it needs extra scrutiny when it comes only from him. More scrutiny than might be required with regard to sole-source material from a recognized specialist in whatever the subject matter is. --Trovatore 01:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then we're in complete agreement. -lethe talk [ +] 01:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Also agree (on both points).--CSTAR 02:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weisstein reliability (or not)

message: I've been working on the matrix group page and need some help with the content.  In particular I'm trying to summarize the types of classical groups but don't have the necessary background to do so.  Some of the changes involve generalizing the definitions on other pages (such as unitary group) to arbitrary fields as well as possibly adding some pages (such as projective special orthogonal group).
I've put a summary of the changes I think would be helpful on Talk:Matrix_group.  TooMuchMath 05:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The links have become redirects, but have the target articles added the necessary discussions? For example, "projective special orthogonal group" redirects to "orthogonal group", but that article says nothing specific to support the redirect. --KSmrqT 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with matrix groups 

message: Since we seem to be discussing references/sourcing so much recently.... can I ask what is the deal with references for all of our articles on more basic topics? For example, none of the following articles have any book/journal references: irreducible polynomial, normal subgroup, null space, vector space, affine scheme, group (mathematics), symmetric group, function composition. And there are plenty more, they're very easy to find. For such articles, sourcing would have two primary purposes: (1) historical information about where the concept first appeared, possibly in nascent form (this is hard because it involves genuine historical research), and (2) pedagogical, i.e. "where you can learn more about this idea". The second one is obviously problematic because in some cases there are many thousands of textbooks that cover the relevant material. On the other hand, sometimes I feel like there are some double standards going on in the background: for topics which all of us here know are important and standard, we don't require any sourcing, but things like "radical integer" make sparks fly.... Dmharvey 12:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly think that for basic subjects, referencing one or more modern textbooks on the subject would be really useful.  For example, something like "An introduction for Undergraduates is given by 'Algebra' Splodgett and Madeup (Cambridge 2003).  A textbook more suitable for postgraduates is 'Introduction to Algebra' Spurious and Fictitious (Springer Verlag 1998)."  (I pick on Algebra because I was recently looking at [Elementary Algebra] and that has poor references (though I didn't know of a good one to use myself).  There's no way that a wikipedia page, no matter how good, can teach a basic mathematical topic and therefore a textbook reference (and some insight into what level of student it would suit) would be very helpful.  I realise this could possibly cause issues with people recommending their own books or particular favourite texts.  --Richard Clegg 14:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's not mix apples and oranges. Sources for mainstream mathematical content act as enrichment, "See also". The content is not in dispute, perhaps with a few lunatic exceptions. Many of the algebra topics, for example, could cite Mac Lane and Birkhoff's Algebra (), or van der Waerden, Moderne Algebra (), or Artin's Algebra (), or numerous other texts; and they should. In other cases, we have questions of proof, or notation, or history, or who-knows-what. It is not practical to referee every article like a journal paper, and even then many assertions are accepted without proof. We concentrate our demand for references on statements that raise suspicion. In principle, we should be able to defend "1+1=2", but in practice that level of citation would be absurd. --KSmrqT 22:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would agree with KSmq.  The rules for when a reference is not required (as I remember from high school) is if the information is "widely known" (which in high school meant that it was avaliable in three or more sources).  "Moscow is the capital of Russia" would not need a citation for this reason.  Even when we do run into problems with conflicting definitions ("St. Petersburg is the capital of Russia" was true for a time) citations aren't strictly required if both definitions are or have been widely used.  In fact a discussion of the historical (or motivational) reasons for differing definitions is often more useful than a citation in these cases.  A citation is required only when a definition is obscure.  Aside from the academic integrity motivations for proper citation, this is particularly important on Wikipedia to ensure the "no original research" policy as well as to weed out the junk science.  That said, a good reference or two can enrich the content substatially, so even for widely known topics it would be a good idea to add references.  TooMuchMath 18:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nicely put. This is the "rational double standard" I was advocating above. However I wouldn't formalize the "three sources" standard; I think the appropriate test is more whether an ordinarily prepared worker in the specialty would know the facts asserted. --Trovatore 19:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I agree with the bulk of what everyone's saying here, certainly I agree with the "rational double standard". I intended my comment to focus more on the educational usefulness of Wikipedia, rather than its veracity. In fact, if I had more time available now, I would consider trying to organise a "let's find book/pagenumber references for all those unreferenced basic topics articles" project, for the sole purpose of assisting those who are using Wikipedia as part of their mathematics studies. It's getting to a point now where an undergraduate and even a graduate student (like myself) can profitably use Wikipedia as their first stop when looking stuff up, and it would be incredibly helpful to have more pointers to denser sources of information. Unfortunately I don't have the time now. (nudge nudge wink wink) Dmharvey 19:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a problem I have encountered when ever I nominate maths articles for Good Article status - they very often comment on teh lack of sources. The trouble is that many of the common topics (groups, vectors etc.) are written entirely of own knowledge, which means the source is out own knowledge  hence the lack of physical references. That said, I think we should always list *some* references, if only to provide a place for readers to verify the info or find out more. Don't forget it says under any edit box that "Content must not violate any copyright and must be verifiable". Any book which know contains infomation for the article in question is suitable. Putting the article name in Amazon's search box often provides something suitable. (Although the references I list tend to come from the reading list for my uni's maths course). Tompw 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  references for basic topics 

message: Copied from Talk:Mathematics --Salix alba (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it seems fully referenced... hmm I guess Salix Alba fixed it already. --MarSch 17:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, what about the naming? I've already downcased it, but it didn't occur to me at the time that it would probably be more standard to move it to PDE surface, assuming there is such a thing as a PDE surface that makes sense in isolation from other PDE surfaces. On the other hand, if it's the description of a method rather than a kind of mathematical object, should it perhaps be method of PDE surfaces? --Trovatore 17:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDE Surfaces 

message: mathematics is curerntly going very well on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Maybe you want to vote for it --MarSch 18:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mathematics for AID 

message: There's an extremely heated debate going on the talk page for Serge Lang between two editors, User: Revolver and User: Pjacobi.  The issue is whether an external link to an article on the AIDS wiki (which was written by Revolver) should be allowed.  I've just made my thoughts known there, and I also noticed that an RFC had been filed, but no comments had been made here (which is requested on the RFC page).  --C S (Talk) 04:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  debate over external link at [[Talk: Serge Lang]] 

message: I nominated Theorem 1 for deletion. I tried using  first but its author disagreed. Comments welcome.  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete.  The author says "There is a list, and this is #1."  I'm not aware of any cosmic list of theorems.  Now it does have something of a place of distinction -- postulate #4 of book 1 of Euclid's elements.  But it isn't "theorem #1".  Will there be a theorem #2?  William Ackerman 17:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point in commenting here. To find the discussion, go to the article in question, and follow the link at the top of the page. --Trovatore 17:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theorem 1 

message: There is an NPOV dispute at the above articles: we need expert advice from statistician(s), especially those familiar with spatial statistics.
Briefly: User:JanWMerks claims that geostatistics is a scientific fraud, and has repeatedly edited these related articles to reflect that POV. Myself, User:Antandrus, and others were trying to point out Wikipedia rules, such as WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NOR. Much edit warring ensued.
Now, the dispute (at spatial dependence) is over whether the F-test is a valid statistical test for spatial dependence. Also: several references (at geostatistics and kriging) are being used to support the claim that kriging is invalid, and I don't have easy access to a good library to check these references.
I hope that someone is willing to research the claims of invalidity better than I can, or perhaps simply provide a third opinion about the dispute.
Please feel free to visit Talk:Geostatistics, Talk:Kriging, and Talk:Spatial dependence to help out. Thanks!
-- hike395 17:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute at [[geostatistics]], [[kriging]], and [[spatial dependence]] 

message: I wonder if these two Greek suffixes mean the same or almost the same thing. Then, the following redirects may make sense:
* Great dirhombicosidodecacron --------> Great dirhombicosidodecahedron
* Great dodecahemicosacron --------> Great dodecahemicosahedron
* Great dodecahemidodecacron --------> Great dodecahemidodecahedron
* Great icosihemidodecacron --------> Great icosihemidodecahedron
* Small dodecahemicosacron --------> Small dodecahemicosahedron
* Small dodecahemidodecacron --------> Small dodecahemidodecahedron
* Small icosihemidodecacron --------> Small icosihemidodecahedron
I stumbled into them at the Missing science project, and don't know what to do about them. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the ones on the left are duals of the ones on the right or something. They should be given seperate articles. -- 127.*.*.1 20:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed the coverage of dual is week at the moment. I've mentioned this on Talk:Polyhedron. --Salix alba (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cron vs hedron 

message: This category called ":Category:Continuum theory" is a subcategory of "Set theory" and of "General topology", but it contains no articles.  Should it be deleted?  How can I propose it for deletion? JRSpriggs 07:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion explains the deletion process. It might be applicable for speedy deletion. --Salix alba (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, WP:CSD says that empty categories can be speedied.  I'm going to do it.  This category defines a continuum as a compact connected metric space, which isn't right.  The real line is not compact. -lethe talk [ +] 07:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Continuum has more than one meaning in mathematics.  In continuum theory, which is related to dynamical systems, continuum does indeed mean what the category said.  Perfectly cromulent articles which would have belonged in this category include pseudo-arc, indecomposable continuum and solenoid (mathematics).  —Blotwell 14:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the category had a correct definition, and also there are articles which could live in it, then the deletion was inappropriate.  I will now undelete, and promise to be more careful when speedying things in the future.  Thank you. -lethe talk [ +] 20:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete "Category:Continuum theory"? 

message: An editor insists on removing red links as "cleanup".  I think the participants here realize the importance of red links to this project (and Wikipedia in general).  I'm puzzled why anyone would insist on removing them, but this editor has been quite stubborn, insisting that the articles *must* be created before links to them can be included in this article.  --C S (Talk) 00:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help requested at [[hyperbolic 3-manifold]] 

message: A stock market "analyst" who sold a correspondence course on "cycle analysis". This link includes a table of contents which I think makes clear how trivial Dewey's "system" is; please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward R. Dewey. Septentrionalis 19:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Edward R. Dewey]]

message: The lists at Wikipedia:Missing science topics#Mathematics now contain entries from  MathWorld, Springer Encyclopaedia of Mathematics, Charles Matthews' maths lists (thanks Charles!), St Andrew's,  and PlanetMath. There are 15465 redlinks and 9700 bluelinks (in separate lists), which is a progress of 38.55% towards eliminating the redlinks. For many redlinks it is likely that the information exists on Wikipedia but under a different name, so creating redirects is a good way to advance that project forward. The harvest is great and the workmen are few (since it's Easter today :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I finally got permission from Springer to use their lists in our project. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really?  That's very generous of them, I didn't think they would.  I think mathworld wasn't willing.  Neat! -lethe talk [ +] 03:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Mathworld was not willing, how come the Wikipedia:Missing science topics was created to start with? Before I got there, all the math entries from there were copied from MathWorld, all the way to incomplete entries, like Archimedean Spiral Inv.... Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I seem to recall a discussion here on the wikiproject talk page, where someone created a carbon copy of the mathworld index of topics, and someone emailed them, and they indicated that it was indeed a violation of their copyright.  In fact, my recollection is that you were in this converation, though I could be mistaken.  Anyway, I don't know where the content of Wikipedia:Missing science topics comes from, but unless I'm misremembering something, to have their index is a copyright violation.  I guess I should see if I can find that old conversation. -lethe talk [ +] 07:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's really good news.  I'm not so surprised though, that Springer was willing but MathWorld not.  There are people at Springer that are truly committed to what they're doing and I've seen Springer do things that strictly speaking, they did not need to do.  --C S (Talk) 07:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on the lists of missing math topics 

message: I have nominated How to get the prime factors of a number for deletion. Comments welcome. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like useful information, although it could be better written. Is this info in some other article? If not, maybe the article should stand. PAR 16:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take comments on the merits to the AfD page. --Trovatore 17:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD - How to get the prime factors of a number