Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2006/Mar

message: I've been being WP:BOLD with the subcategories of :Category:Recreational mathematics.  In particular I've emptied its rather ill-defined subcategory :Category:Mathematical recreations and puzzles; a lot of its articles have found much better homes, but those that really did want to be somewhere under both :Category:Recreational mathematics and :Category:Puzzles I've put in one of a few joint subcategories such as :Category:Mechanical puzzles.  (Putting "puzzles" as a subcat of "recreational mathematics", as suggested on one talk page, isn't really an option: there are a lot of puzzles there that really aren't mathematical.)
While I was at it I also emptied :Category:Puzzle games, which had an identity crisis as some people thought it was :Category:Puzzle computer and video games while others couldn't tell it from :Category:Puzzles.
Anyway, I expect I've offended innumerable people one way or another.  If I've put your favourite article somewhere you don't think it belongs, please don't hesitate to move it (hopefully not into the categories I've carefully emptied).  If you dislike the entire new categorization, please don't hesitate to argue with me about it.  Though I can't imagine I've made things worse, since everything was categorized more or less at random to begin with.  —Blotwell 14:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recategorizing recreational mathematics 

message: :Category:Mathematicians by religion has a single subcategory, :Category:Jewish mathematicians. I would think that being Jewish does not necessarily mean being religious. And do we actually need to categorize mathematicians on whether they were relegious, and if yes, what relegion they were practicing? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a jew does not, of course, make one religious, any more than being a christian makes one religious. So the categories' names do not imply that the mathematicians in question are religious - They just state to which religion they belong. And I think such categories are useful, in the same way that categories of mathematicians by nationality are useful. But obviously, additional categories for other religions, not just judaism, are in order for it to be meaningful. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I wonder if Voltaire belongs in the :Category:Christians in science, as, like me, his parents were Christian?  I don't like this kind of categorization either; I think its basically some subtle political POV-pushing. May I suggest one possible cure: IF the person preached a religion (other than math) at one point in thier life, or published articles on faith (in newspapers, as letters to the editor, etc), THEN they may be classified by faith. However, if they had the bad luck of having Christian, or Jewish parents, that alone is not a reason to classify.  I would insist on proof of religious activity before allowing classification. linas 14:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Mathematicians by religion

message: Um, I don't actually know french, but I thought only the first "e" in "etale" had an acute accent. So is this edit incorrect? Dmharvey 03:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in this context, it's correct: the term in Hartshorne is "éspace étalé". Ryan Reich 03:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So how do you know when it's étale and when it's étalé? Dmharvey 03:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I can tell, it's étalé here, and étale for morphisms. "éspace étalé" means roughly "slackened space", or "stretched-out space", which is reasonable given what it is, while an "étale morphism" is simply a "slack morphism".  The metaphor is roughly the same, in that the slackness refers to a space constructed from layers laid out flat, and the grammatical difference distinguishes the "slackened space" constructed from something which was not, of itself, slack, from the "slack morphism", which is inherently so.  Of course, "éspace étalé" is not used much anyway. Ryan Reich 03:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It is certainly espace (not *éspace) étalé in French, but this leaves open the question of what the English translation of this expression is.  I had been under the impression that it was called the étale space nevertheless, but Google seems to support both usages.  —Blotwell 05:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  french spelling 

message: I think Elementary function (differential algebra) should be moved to Elementary function, currently a disambiguation page with little value. Despite the title, said article covers the concept of elementary functions in the general sense. Fredrik Johansson 23:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would simplify a few links and a line could be added to the article pointing to the list of common functions.  When Elementary function (differential algebra) was created what is currently List of mathematical functions was in an article called Elementary functions, so I had to create something else.  XaosBits 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Could someone execute the move? Fredrik Johansson 04:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of "elementary function" article 

message: Charles Matthews and I are having a discussion about the correct definition of general linear group. It might be useful to have more input. The question is whether it should be defined initially in terms of rings or fields. Talk:General_linear_group A5 22:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of General Linear Group 

message: I've been playing around with the database dumps and extracted the most links and least linked mathematics articles. 
*top linked maths articles
*orphaned maths articles
*maths redirect frequency
The top linked articles might be useful for directing our efforts as these are probably most visited pages. The orphaned articles and redirects could help with some housekeeping. For example there is Squircle which seems quite dubious, and there are several highly linked redirects which indicate a need for some topics to be expanded. --Salix alba (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  Pi has 314 links... Ryan Reich 14:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No way.... Dmharvey 14:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it holds slot 77 which is almost pi/4. linas 15:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I wonder about the correctness of these lists. I was browsing the "orphaned" list and I was very surprised to see Stone–Weierstrass theorem, which of course is linked to from many articles. Paul August ☎ 17:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite a tricky job, especially where redirects are concerned. For Stone–Weierstrass theorem the only pages which link directly to it are 6 redirect pages . For some technical reason, I've not included redirects in the count of articles. So these lists are the bests my little scripts can produce at the moment. If people feel the need, I'll try to update them to get closer to a real number. In the case of Stone–Weierstrass, I'd actually say the appearence in the list is a good thing. Looking closely, the hyphen in the article name is an odd unicode character (0xE28093) rather than a regular ascii hyphen (0x2D). I'd say this would be a good case for the article to be moved to the name with the ascii hyphen. --Salix alba (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I see. Yes I noticed the odd name. I think I will move the article. Paul August ☎ 19:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Were we? I missed that. Why would we want to do that? Paul August ☎ 20:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most linked to and least linked to maths articles

message: This article was intended to be comprehensible to all mathematicians.
It was not intended to teach mathematical induction.  It was not intended to explain what mathematical induction is, nor how to use it.
It was nominated for deletion by those who did not understand it.  To some extent, they did not understand it because it was a stub and failed to explain what audience it was intended for and what its purpose was.
A bunch of (mostly) non-mathematicians looking at the stub form in which the article appeared when it was nominated from deletion saw that
* It was not comprehensible to ordinary non-mathematicians who know what mathematical induction is, and
* The article titled mathematical induction is comprehensible to ordinary non-mathematicians, even those who know --- say --- secondary-school algebra, but have never heard of mathematical induction,
...and voted to delete.
And so I have now expanded the article far beyond the stub stage, including
* Substantial expansion and organization of the introductory section.
* Two examples of part of the article that is probably hardest to understand to those who haven't seen these ideas.
* An prefatory statement right at the top, saying that this article is NOT the appropriate place to try to learn what mathematical induction is or how to use it, with a link to the appropriate article for that.  It explains that you need to know mathematical induction before you can read this article.
Therefore, I have invited those who voted to delete before I did these recent de-stubbing edits, to reconsider their votes in light of the current form of the article.
I also ask others here to vote on it by clicking here.
(Nothing like nomination for deletion to get you to work on a long-neglected stub article!) Michael Hardy 23:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Three forms of mathematical induction]]

message: My assumption of good faith in User:WAREL (formerly User:DYLAN LENNON) is being sorely tested. I know I'm not the only one who has wasted a lot of time over the past few weeks dealing with him/her. I'm wondering whether anyone else here has any thoughts about how to deal with WAREL, short of deploying an automatic WAREL-edit-reverting-bot. Dmharvey 18:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For context, see the following article histories Decimal representation, Real number, Twin prime conjecture, as well as User talk:WAREL (Link to today's version, as WAREL likes to delete things he does not like. See especially the bottom section.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAREL 

message: This isn't about mathematics, but it is about a mathematician. Anybody who has spare time and is willing to read a long talk page is kindly request to comment on the dispute regarding al-Khwarizmi's etnicity at Talk:al-Khwarizmi. Cheers, —Ruud 14:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about showing the whole lot of them the way to Wikinfo, which wants editors like that? ;-> Septentrionalis 19:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Somehow I doubt that most persons involved are interested in updating his biography beyond the first two sentences. —Ruud 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[al-Khwarizmi]] 

message: Discussion moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0 Tompw 16:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

message: Notice: interested contributors may wish to participate in the Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer reviews by working scientists.
--Ancheta Wis 17:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review]] 

message: Gallagher Index is a Political Science article and subject.  But currently it could probably do with a mathematicans eye (alongside a few more things as well).  Essentially, is there a neater or nicer way of doing the table at the bottom as an example of how the index is generated?  Cheers, --Midnighttonight 08:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you guys have a look 

message: On my suggestion, Salix alba made a list of Wikipedia articles which are not categorized, but which are linked from a math article. That list has a bunch of false positives, but also articles which are math and are not categorized. I suggest we start a cat wiki-pet (short for a Categorizing Wikiproject), going through those articles and categorizing them.
I split the list into 47 sections of 50 articles each. One may choose a  section to work on, and sign at the bottom when done. I did the first three, and found roughly 3-5 articles out of 50 which may need categorizing. See the list at User:Salix alba/maths/uncategorised maths. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about the category system, but if I just tag relevant articles with :Category:Mathematics, is that enough to get them on the radar? (i.e. should I mark a section as "done" if I do this?) Dmharvey 03:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd shoot for at least one level more specific than :Category:Mathematics. The names of the big categories are pretty intuitive: :Category:Algebra, :Category:Mathematical analysis, :Category:Mathematical logic, :Category:Geometry, :Category:Topology, :Category:Number theory. Just make sure to remember the "mathematical" before "analysis" or "logic". --Trovatore 03:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sometimes one can pick the right category by looking at the articles going from the current one. But yes, putting them in :Category:Mathematics is a good first option. Then my bot will list them to the list of mathematics articles, so more people will see them and may refine the categorization further. So yes, marking a section as done if the articles there are listed in some category is good, thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok guys thanks Dmharvey 03:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oleg, you are SO going to award it to yourself. That is, like, so totally not fair. Dmharvey 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Now, I eager to get the wiki-pet, reviewed a section, categorized around 10 of the 20 there, felt good of myself, and when I got to editing the section to say "done", I see the section was done already! Dmharvey, now that's unfair. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps people should mark their territory -- in a nice way -- at the top of the score of items when they start work on it?  Jon Awbrey 05:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I doubt it is worth it; I meant it to be a silly joke rather than a complaint. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  \! Jon Awbrey 05:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheaters!!!! Hey, I noticed that some of the "finished" sections are still contain uncategorized articles. Even if the article is not about math, please do make an effort to put it into some category, somewhere!!! linas 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Be my guest, my friend. :)  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorizing articles

message: This is the new title of History of pi. Even I think this is pædantry, so it may be over the top. Can we discuss this here, away from the Pi day crowds? Septentrionalis 00:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "History of pi" deserves an article.  To think that a table of the history of numerical computation of pi is the same thing as a history of pi is very silly.  I've moved the table to another article, and labeled this article a stub. Michael Hardy 01:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree w/Michael. I remember reading, as a young student, of plenty of interesting snippets about Egyptians knotting strings, silly legislation in kansas about pi=3, and what not. It deserves an article. linas 22:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL... I remember adding that to (what is now called) Chronology of computation of pi (see under 1897), except the reference I have is for Indiana not Kansas. Dmharvey 22:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[History of human knowledge about pi]]

message: Hi guys,
I was wondering why I can find so many maths-related articles here that do not reference relevant pages from MathWorld. I'm not sure what their license model is, but I can only assume that this is the reason why it's not popular around here? Please let me know if you think including their articles as references is a desirable thing. I'm watching this page, so do reply here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, we can't include relevant sections of MathWorld articles, as that would be a copyright violation.  The reason for not referencing MathWorld articles is probably the uneven quality (yes, even by our standards) and the presence of clear errors (possible copyright traps) and probable neologisms.  (I don't think the neologism being published as part of Mathematica makes it any less a neologism.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Arthur and the reasons he provides.  A policy of providing links to mathworld just doesn't make sense for us.  However, if you come across a particular article where they have a much stronger version, then certainly linking to theirs would be useful (even better: bring ours up to snuff). -lethe talk [ +] 15:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, making it a policy to link to mathworld does not make sense, but I would think we should be encouraged in making external links to mathwolrd on case-by-case basis when those links are relevant (not necessarily much stronger than ours :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding: I was referring to the license model because Planet Math is more frequently linked to. Is quality really so divergent between the two? I'm not trained as a mathematician, so I admit my judgement is poor. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We actually copy planetmath articles, see WP:PMEX, that's why we must refer to the original versions, per their site license. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I second Arthur's comments.  Just in the past month or so, I've had to remove several external links to MathWorld because when I checked them out, I found out they contained major errors.  Sometimes these MathWorld articles can be good, but other times, it looks like a real hack job.  So it's definitely not good to just unilaterally add the MathWorld links.  I think it best for editors working on particular articles in their area of knowledge to add the links they actually found the most useful.  --C S (Talk) 10:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MathWorld 

message: at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proof_that_22_over_7_exceeds_%CF%80#.5B.5BProof_that_22_over_7_exceeds_.CF.80.5D.5D.
The delete votes seem to be from non-mathematicians who erroneously think they understand the article.  The main idea is this:
:0<\int_0^1\frac{x^4(1-x)^4}{1+x^2}\,dx=\frac{22}{7}-\pi.
Therefore 22/7 > π.
But the article also includes exposition, discussion, and mention of the appearance of this problem in the Putnam Competition.
One "delete"-voter says this is no more significant than, for example, a proof that π > 3.14159 or the like.  The fact that 22/7 is a convergent in the continued fraction expansion of π seems to mean nothing to that person or to escape his notice altogether.  The fact that this particular integral is so simple and has a neat pattern also seems to escape them.  Another shows signs of thinking that all articles on π-related topics should get merged into one article (see list of topics related to pi). Michael Hardy 02:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please vote on this proposed deletion

message: So what's the deal with linking to the arxiv? This has come up quite a number of times in the last little while. Someone has gone trigger-happy recently on some papers there by Diego Saá, and it took a lot of convincing to get User:WAREL to stop linking there. (Or maybe he/she is still at it.) I would think generally such papers do not qualify for linking from Wikipedia, unless there are very good reasons to the contrary. Somehow a link to the arXiv has an air of respectability that you don't get from your home page on geocities etc, but it's not deserved, and we shouldn't be misleading people into thinking that the arXiv is a reliable resource. Dmharvey 02:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. One should only use references to books and peer-reviewed journals. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not how it works in mathematics research, and I see no reason why Wikipedia should adopt stricter rules for citations in its mathematics articles than most of the mathematics community itself. Wikipedia would only be shooting itself in the foot. --C S (Talk) 05:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, we should prefer refereed references.  Of course for journal references that are also on the arxiv, we should provide an arxiv link (not everyone has access to an academic library).  Furthermore, there are worthwhile things on the arxiv which don't get published in journals.  A lot of times, Witten, for example, publishes a lot of his papers only through the arxiv, he doesn't feel that journal referees are qualified to vet his papers.  And there are précis on the arxiv which are very good resources but not original work, and therefore not appropriate for journals.  But of course, there is also crackpottism on the arxiv, so care is certainly required. -lethe talk [ +] 04:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You definitely need a lot of care when citing papers by a guy who "doesn't feel that journal referees are qualified to vet his papers". :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a dangerous attitude; but in the case of Witten I suspect many of the referees would agree, and are probably relieved that they do not have to try to keep up! --KSmrqT 16:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off-topic: but Alexander Grothendieck stopped publishing in journals as well. linas 23:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In the last six months, I have found there a paper proving P=NP and another proving P\neqNP. No comments... pom 16:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  arXiv 

message: If you have this talk page on your watchlist, then you should add your name, field(s) of expertise and interests to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Participants page! I know there are some newcomers who haven't yet signed up, and I suspect there are some old-timers as well.  linas 22:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant to sign up at some point, but I glanced over the list and, frankly, many of you guys seem to be so good that it's kind of scary (I'm only an undergrad student) :-) - only half joking. But now, if you say so... AdamSmithee 00:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would join but you see, I'm on vacation. Good luck to you all. -- 127.*.*.1 01:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me also add, feel free not to add yourself to that list or any others, for any reason.  I myself don't see what purpose the list serves, and don't like adding myself to lists like that, though I did so eventually.  -lethe talk [ +] 03:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously the list doesn't have any kind of official status, but it does create a kind of community, as well as crystallizing one's own role in the Mathematics project in one's own mind.  Mostly it seems sort of like the ritual of everyone gathering in a circle and placing hands one above another to seal a pact.  And I'd encourage AdamSmithee to put his name on the list simply because he feels out of place; doing so will put him correctly in place :) Ryan Reich 06:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I got into a discussion recently about how many particle physicists there are working in WP; looking at the participants list help put a lower bound on the number. This is a lot like any department directory or phonebook or census: rarely looked at, but terribly useful when its really needed. That, and indeed, the community feeling of the historical "I was here" thing. In 20 years, the list may be interesting to review: "I remember old so-n-so." linas 02:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please sign up on the participants list! 

message: Just noticed at perfect number (at the bottom of the section on odd perfect numbers), this math tag:
  2^{4^{n}}
is getting rendered as this html:
  24n
to appear as:
  24n
.. which is clearly wrong.
I wasted some time tracking down the paper to check the clearly wrong result before realising that it was the rendering rather than the text that was at fault. I don't know if this is a well known bug, but a brief search on Mediazilla didn't throw up any candidates. I have reported it to the Wikitech-l mailing list mailing list. Hv 16:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed this before. It's actually not a bug in the LaTeX => HTML converter. It has to do with HTML tidy, which is a program that processes the HTML after the converter is done with it. The correct translation would be something like 24n. I think what happens is that HTML tidy sees the second  and assumes that the author forgot the slash. So it inserts an extra slash producing 24n</sup>. Then it sees the next </sup> and can't find a matching  so it kills that one too. Finally the last  dies. This is just a theory, but I'm pretty sure that texvc gets the conversion right in the first place. Dmharvey 18:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See for example http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108. Dmharvey 18:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the pointer. Is this HTML Tidy we're talking about? Because if so I'm surprised there's no mention there that it is being used on WP. (I also had a quick browse of the HTML Tidy bugs database, and saw no related item there.) If not, can you point me at some details of the HTML tidy you mean? I'd like to track this problem further ... Hv 19:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's the Tidy I mean. There is a flag $wgUseTidy in the mediawiki source which enables use of HTML Tidy. I'm pretty sure they use it on WP itself. You could try asking User:Jitse Niesen, I know he's at least one person who's been thinking about Tidy recently :-) Dmharvey 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I do know about it. This is fixed in the current version of HTML Tidy, but that is not yet installed on the MediaWiki servers. Details are in mediazilla:599. I haven't yet seen your post to the mailing list (perhaps it's help up in a queue), but the solution is to upgrade HTML Tidy. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, I even managed to find the changelog that fixed it () but I guess that's redundant now. (I also followed up with a "never mind" to my wikitech mail, so it may never get through to the list.) I look forward to the new version. Hv 23:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  &lt;math&gt; rendering bug 

message: There is a discussion on which name is more appropriate at talk:decimal representation. Comments welcome. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Decimal representation]] or [[decimal expansion]]?  

message: There is an editor, User:Jagged 85, whom you may recognize as being interested in the contribution of Indian mathematicians. At transfinite number he has been making edits that attribute the concept to certain ancient Jaina mathematicians/philosophers. The evidence presented is, in my estimation, of the sort that would be accepted only by someone who either has an agenda, or who does not really understand the contemporary concept. I'd appreciate it if some interested folks would drop by and take a look. --Trovatore 21:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with your assessment.  In fact, I'll go further: this is obvious crackpotism.  Various ancient philosophers have made dubious or meaningless claims about infinity (I had found a quote by Aristotle stating that the number of grains of sands on a beach was "infinite"), but none of them corresponds to what we now view as transfinite numbers; and Indian mathematicians were so proud of their invention of the decimal system that they had fun writing very large numbers as cosmic cycles, and sometimes they confused them with infinity, but obviously this has nothing to do with the modern concept.  I support any move toward removing the incriminated section. --Gro-Tsen 22:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is no more (and no less) nonsense than Galileo's work on infinite numbers, in which he found that the natural numbers were equinumerous with a subset (the set of squares) and recoiled in horror. It is not the transfinites. Septentrionalis 22:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it could be documented that the Jaina had the notion of equinumerosity (as witnessed by one-one matching), that would already be a step in the right direction, though I still don't think it would be enough to use the word "transfinite". As I understand it the historical context is that Cantor didn't want to use the word "infinite" because he was talking about things that were not absolutely infinite. They were trans-finite, beyond a limit, but not in-finite, without limit. That last sentence may be a bit of retrospective etymology on my part, but I think it really is the basic idea, whether or not Cantor had that specific etymological reasoning in mind. --Trovatore 22:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A section reviewing the general history of eastern and western ideas about infinity, including Aristotle's ideas, as well as Gaileo's shock, would not be out of place somwhere on WP. We do, after all, have :Category:History of mathematics and the topic of infinity, just like the question "what is four dimensions", was a legit intellectual excercise over the millenia.  No doubt Immanuel Kant had some pronouncemnts as well. linas 00:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Never mind. That article exists, its called infinity, and the Indian stuff should be moved there. linas 01:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem at [[transfinite number]]

message: Vladimir Arnold or Arnol'd?  Vladimir Drinfel'd or Drinfeld?  We should be consistent: and preferably across all references to them in WP.  (In both cases we currently use the apostrophe sometimes, but far from consistently.)  —Blotwell 06:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For Арнольд, we may as well defer to the way it appears on his books and web page, "Arnold". --KSmrqT 02:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Transliteration of the soft sign ("ь")—which does not so much represent a sound as a modification—is problematic, and conventions vary. But for names, it appears that in a context like this, appearing before a consonant, it would typically be omitted. Wikipedia allows us to choose that one as primary, for the article name, and use redirects for the variants. --KSmrqT 18:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another tedious orthography question 

message: Major changes since 0.4.3 are:
* support for Japanese and Cyrillic in PNGs
* much faster PNG output, because we're using dvipng rather than dvips/imagemagick
Useful links:
* test wiki at http://wiki.blahtex.org (recently got attacked by spammers :-))
* page illustrating blahtex's features
* blahtex home page
* updated error list (currently 337 errors)
Dmharvey 14:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dx in \int f(x) dx doesn't look right in the MathML output (it's rendered "d x"). Fredrik Johansson 14:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which browser+version are you using? This was a known problem with earlier versions of Firefox. Dmharvey 14:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firefox 1.5.0.1. Fredrik Johansson 14:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... does the same thing happen at all font sizes? Dmharvey 20:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially. Increasing the text size a few times doesn't change the absolute width (it stays at 3 pixels); it looks normal if I use an obscenely large font. By the way, the space gets one pixel narrower if I disable the page CSS style (but still looks too wide, though this could be in my imagination). See image. Fredrik Johansson 21:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bummer. Thanks for pointing this out. I looks like Firefox is interpreting the "d" and "x" as belonging in separate "frames" and doesn't want to overlap them; therefore because the "d" is italicised and tall, it pushes the "x" to the right. I'm not totally sure about this, especially since there's a one pixel overlap in your second example, but that could just be some rendering thing that happens after the frames have been positioned. I will put it on my list of bugs to pursue; it's probably something that the Firefox folks will need to deal with. Dmharvey 03:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  blahtex 0.4.4 released 

message: There is some disagreement on what to include in the gradient article. It is argued by some parties that it should be a disambig. Comments welcome at talk:gradient#Should gradient be a disambigutation page? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[gradient]]  issues 

message: What programs would people around here recommend for making images to illustrate geometry and linear algebra concepts (and the like)? I'd like to manually input coordinates for vector arrows, line segments, points, etc., choose colors and line styles, and output the result to SVG. Eukleides looks good, but it doesn't do 3D and I need that. Fredrik Johansson 23:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Matlab gives you complete control, 3D, and output to color EPS. Here is a (free) program which it seems outputs to svg . May be more. Of course, Matlab costs money, but should be available at any university, if you are in academia. Here are some pictures I made with it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I have access to Matlab, but not at home (not conveniently, anyway). Fredrik Johansson 00:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You could learn a scripting language and roll your own tool. It shouldn't be that difficult. Dysprosia 02:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Next thing you build your own rocket in your backyard, and could as well write your own encyclopedia. :)  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Been there done that SingSurf, good for algebraic surfaces. It relies on JavaView which is quite good for 3D maths and is free as in beer but not speach. Also see Interactive geometry software for others. --Salix alba (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programs for linear algebra illustrations 

message: John Reid moved the article "Ruler-and-compass constructions" to "Compass and straightedge". As the article currently stands, I think there are problems with the new name. I intended to move the article back to its original name, until we can reach a consensus, but I inadvertently left out the hyphens and moved it instead to Ruler and compass constructions. Please share your views on any of this at Talk:Ruler and compass constructions. I will volunteer to make any necessary changes after we arrive at a consensus about what to do. Thanks — Paul August ☎ 17:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move of "Ruler-and-compass constructions" to "compass and straightedge" 

message: Some of us can't agree on how to properly call the article Ruler and compass constructions, with the other option being Compass and straightedge. "Votes" at Talk:Ruler and compass constructions are solicited. :)  Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on "ruler" vs "straightedge" 

message: 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 18:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Neusis]]