Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2005/Jun-Jul

message: I would really like to know your opinion on what these articles should be about. Since the tangent bundle is basically the collection of vector fields, it would be useful to make it clear what info should go where. --MarSch 14:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These articles certainly need a lot of work. For example, the vector field article should also have a more "introduction to several variables"-level version, with explicit formulae in terms of partial derivatives etc. There should be a version of tangent bundles in terms of submanifolds of euclidean space, as well as the more abstract version there currently. Dmharvey Talk 4:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tangent bundle should cover the holomorphic version, the version in algebraic geometry, too. There are also replacements (microbundles) to consider; and mappings on tangent bundles (not on vector fields - see the notorious push forward talk page discussion). Vector fields in plane regions is already an interesting area. So there seem to be reasons to have two pages. Charles Matthews 15:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[tangent bundle]] and [[vector field]] 

message: So what is happening there? The tag has been taken down from tensor, which was current. I don't see another nomination has been made. Charles Matthews 16:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Mathematics Collaboration of the Week]]

message: There are some interesting discussions going on at Wikipedia talk:How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics. I believe as many of us should be involved in that as possible, as that article is the main document defining how math is to be written. So, comments welcome. Oleg Alexandrov 22:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics]] 

message: According to newly created polygon sum conjecture article, 
:The Polygon sum conjecture is a geometric conjecture that states that the sum of the interior angles of a polygon are equal to 180(N-2), where N is equal to the number of sides that the polygon has.
I almost put it in :Category:Conjectures, when I realized conjectures in elementary geometry do not happen that often... :) 
Anyway, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Polygon sum conjecture. Oleg Alexandrov 01:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Roman letters used in mathematics Oleg Alexandrov 01:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conjecture for deletion 

message: Dear all, I have added the fascinating fact concerning e^(pi sqrt(163)) to the article on complex multiplication. It doesn't really fit very well at the moment, but hopefully one day that will change. The only reason I mention this here is that I'm not sure if this formula appears anywhere else in WP, perhaps it is already stated elsewhere. Thanks peoples. Dmharvey Talk 01:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the equation to Pi, under "Numerical approximations of π". Fredrik | talk 05:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is currently an "explanation" with links to modular form and something else, which is quite frustrating because nothing is explained there. I would appreciate a more precise indication on "how", even if w/o details. — MFH: Talk 12:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the explanation is drastically lacking in detail. I will try to do something about this at some point, but I don't promise anything soon. The problem is, to make this work sensibly would require an article on complex multiplication considerably more in-depth than the presently existing one. Dmharvey Talk 15:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  complex multiplication and e^(pi sqrt(163)) 

message: I've just come across a nice template slapped onto talk pages of chemistry ():
	This article is supported by the WikiProject on Chemistry, which gives a central approach to Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article , or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Should/do we want to have something similar? Might bring more people to the project. --MarSch 18:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some reaction might be nice. Any reaction. --MarSch 13:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't react since I don't have much of an opinion either way. It is quite a bit of work, and I think our current approach of inviting people personally to have a look works much better; on the other hand, it doesn't do any harm, and it will rake in some more people, so go ahead. -- Jitse Niesen 20:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  banner for talk pages 

message: There is a proposal at Talk:List of lists of mathematical topics to reformat that list according to subdivisions of math. Comments welcome. Oleg Alexandrov 19:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of lists of mathematical topics]] 

message: Is my brain broken, or is this theorem just silly? It seems to be saying that the definition of the carmichael function is, in fact, identical to the definition of the carmichael function. Surely the theorem should instead say something like, "the recursive formula given for the carmichael function is correct, i.e. satisfies the property alluded to in carmichael's theorem"? Really these should go into the same article with a redirect on one of them. (And then one day I'll write something about larger examples of carmichael numbers, and of its relevance to primality testing, and fix up some nasty markup.) Dmharvey Talk 23:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[carmichael's theorem]] 

message: (NOT to be confused with list of mathematical topics)
User:Samohyl Jan has completely re-written this list of lists, with some input from me as well.
Please vote on list of lists of mathematical topics at Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates#Nominations. Michael Hardy 00:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tempted to support, but I'm not really into featured lists. --MarSch 10:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The recent total re-write of [[list of lists of mathematical topics]]

message: What about a specialized wikify template for mathematics articles? This might make it easier to keep our to-do-lists recent. See also the discussion at TFD about some of these templates: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Foo-wikify --MarSch 10:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think this would work much better than Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics since categories automatically keep an uptodate list of articles. If you still want to vote, you can do so at  Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Foo_articles_that_need_to_be_wikified. --MarSch 13:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure about a :Category:Math articles that need to be wikified, for the reasons given in the CfD discussion (everybody can wikify), but a :Category:Math articles needing attention does seem to have some use. -- Jitse Niesen 20:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  math-wikify 

message: I nominated topic-based vector space model for deletion because this is a method proposed in a paper in 2003 (see the external link in the article), so it is very new and too early to say if it is proeminent. So I think it is not yet something to be included in an encyclopedia. But I am not 100% sure. I wonder if other mathematicians would visit that article, then post their opinions on the VfD page. Oleg Alexandrov 03:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote "merge as a note in the VSM article and redirect". Pcb21| Pete 07:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: vector space model is by the same author... --MarSch 09:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on VfD 

message: Encouraged by User:Paul August on Talk:Aristotelian logic, I'm posting an invitation to comment on the idea for a WikiProject for Logic.  I have a draft proposal at User:Chalst/WikiProject Logic proposal, and I am interested in:
* Indications of interest
* Criticisms of the what is on the page
Many thanks in advance for your comments. --- Charles Stewart 15:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject logic

message: The article pulation square, which in my opinion is a perfectly fine math stub, has been nominated for deletion here. Please share your thought there. Thanks. Paul August  ☎ 15:30, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
:This is not a legit VfD. Its an act of vandalism by an extremely foul-mouthed  14-year old newcomer to WP (User:Big al kicks ass).  I reported it as such to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress.  linas 17:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pulation square]] on vfd 

message: I ran into this article today. From what I see, this article is the thoughts of a certain Andy Morton about poker posted on rec.gambling.poker (Usenet) around 1997. It seems that his post was rather word for word pasted in this article, and that this article is not encyclopedic. How about voting it for deletion? Oleg Alexandrov 19:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My first impression is not that it should be deleted. However, it may be a copyright issue, so I asked the user who posted it if this could be clarified, see User talk:Fekko. If I do not receive an answer, I will list it on WP:CP. You may also want to confer with User:Revolver, who is apparently responsible for our article on the Fundamental theorem of poker. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, although it's math-related, it's not really a "theorem", so I deleted it from that category. One thing that's not made clear, is that the first paragraph appears to me to be Caro's words. This makes a big difference in reading the post. But, it is definitely a legitimate concept, in fact, it may be one of the most important concepts in all of poker. I'll try to summarise the gist of the post, esp. the example, so as to minimise the potential copyright problems. But, it's definitely encyclopedic. Revolver 13:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Morton's theorem]] 

message: Here's another article on which input is needed. Probabilists out there, do you think this is rescuable? So far, it looks like a table of data obtained by using a paper from 1981. Oleg Alexandrov 20:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a copy of http://www.mathcad.com/library/LibraryContent/puzzles/soln28/exact28.html, but I doubt that it is copyright-able as it's basically a table of numbers. However, I don't see much encyclopaedic value in it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Birthday distribution]] 

message: Any objections to moving Proof of Leibniz formula to Leibniz formula and Proof of Viète formula to Viète formula? I moved Proof of Wallis product earlier, but didn't notice these two. Are there any other proof of X articles without a main X article that should be handled similarly? - Fredrik | talk 21:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it seems that Leibniz formula should more properly be a disambiguation page... - Fredrik | talk 21:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections. --MarSch 10:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof of... articles 

message: A badly written article should not be deleted, rather cleaned up. That is the conventional wisdom, but this particular article is trying my patience. Could anyboyd knowing this stuff take a look and say if this at all makes sence? Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 22:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The mathematics is probably OK. It's about explicit expressions of things like the Lie algebra of the Poincaré group, which is a semidirect product, in a block matrix way. Which is perfectly sensible. There is some odd language, but it is really mostly about writing things down in a 'dimensionless' way (c=1, that sort of thing). I wouldn't vouch for the title being standard. Charles Matthews 22:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hyper generalized orthogonal Lie algebra]] 

message: There's an interesting discussion going on at Talk:Derivative concerning the scope/audience of the article. I'd be interested if anyone supports what I have to say. Alternatively, if you disagree with me, please add your voice. When I hear enough I'll shut up :-) Dmharvey Talk 00:25, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion in question is at the ==Scope of derivative article== heading and below it. Comments are very welcome (requested), since the issue of what to expect from the audience reading our articles is (I think) one of the more pressing ones this project faces. Oleg Alexandrov 03:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  scope of [[derivative]] article 

message: I'd like to point out that there are already some projects which can be described as subprojects of this one, and to suggest some new ones:
* listing key publications in the history of mathematics (actually, I think this one is a quixotic task),
* adding suitable citations to all mathematics articles (I see this as much more painless and feasible, but encourage participants to try hard to add only really suitable citations to articles on topics for which they know the textbook literature),
* themes of mathematics: examples include multiplicity of representations, levels of structure, local to global, classification, categorification, (all but the last two just came up in the manifold/rewrite discussion--- I'd say that manifold is a concept in mathematics, but classification theorem is a theme, and a big one),
* classification theorems could be a category in itself, which would include for example Thurston's classification theorem and Bianchi groups,
* actually, Bianchi group could itself be a category, since I for one believe that these guys are worthy of indidivual articles (which I plan to write), and similarly for other classifications (e.g. an article on H2 should be accessible in one click to someone searching for manifolds of constant curvature, sometimes called space forms).
The goal of the proposed themes of mathematics subproject could be to ensure that any reader who comes to the math pages here will be likely to encounter at least one of these "big ideas", and will be encouraged to read more about it.  At present, many articles adequatley describe a concept but fail to point out that this concept exhibits certain themes, an oversight which I think should be systematically rectified.  For some examples of how big ideas can be incorporated into articles, see my discussion in the talk page for the manifold/rewrite article.
Categorification seems to be a notion some mathematicians hate with a passion, but what I have in mind for the categorification subproject is something I expect we could all agree on: many articles describe concepts but fail to point out that they are examples of categorical notions, and these often arise from an attempt to capture in formal language some theme.  So the categorification subproject could have two complementary goals:
*ensuring that articles mention (probably near the end!) when a concept is an example of a (usually much more general!) concept in category theory, such as a pullback square,
*ensuring that articles on concepts such as pullback square link to articles on important examples of pullback squares.
By the way, the article on Thurston's classification theorem should clarify the relation with uniformitization.  It should probably cite the little book by Andrew Casson.
--CH  (talk) 4 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
:I would say we don't have enough mathematicians (post-doctoral, say) to indulge in subprojects. What is a big deal for us is still getting the top-down view right: fill obvious gaps, list articles, categorise, add biographies, and generally pull things together so that reading the English Wikipedia on mathematics can constitute a liberal education on it. Charles Matthews 08:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics Subprojects, Anyone? 

message: Recently I moved Infinite tree (graph theory) to Tree (set theory), because the trees in question don't have to be infinite and don't have much to do with graph-theoretic trees.  For the same reasons I have proposed that the two redirects, infinite tree and infinite tree (graph theory), be deleted. --Trovatore 04:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects on rfd

message: I'm having a great argument with myself on the above-named page, and it'd be great if one/some of y'all would come referee. --Trovatore 04:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Think I've sorted it out now.  Still welcome to come take a look, though. --Trovatore 02:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Infinity-Borel set]]

message: Template:Quantity and Template:Structure have both been listed for deletion at Templates for deletion. I don't know enough about mathmatical topics to know how coherent the topics are in either template, so I am requesting that some editors with some math knowledge visit TFD and offer their input to the discussion. BlankVerse ∅ 07:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Quantity and Template:Structure 

message: Has anybody noticed the new :Category:Mathematics? --R.Koot 19:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that bit used to be in the main mathematics article - now we have something more mushy, and I miss it. Charles Matthews 20:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: The big challenge is to keep the portal thing up to date. I myself am no big fan of a Wikiportal, whether stand alone or embedded in the category. Oleg Alexandrov 20:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of my two main objectives. See User_talk:DavidLevinson#Category Mathematics --R.Koot 21:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging of Portal and Category 

message: The definable number article is in pretty bad shape.  Whatever it is that the article is talking about, it makes some true and useful assertions about--but it's very unclear what it's talking about.  See the talk page. --Trovatore 04:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the page.  See talk page for discussion. --Trovatore 05:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I decided to see, replaced  with , meant to hit Alt-P but hit Alt-S by mistake, got the red template link, and now it won't let me change it back.  Something going on with the server?--Trovatore 05:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Forgot to mention, the proof's not on the main page; it's on the talk page. --Trovatore 03:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Definable number]]

message: Anybody here heard of mnenta? It's the only contribution from some IP address, I cannot find it in MathSciNet or OED, and none of the 14 pages returned by Google is relevant, so unless somebody speaks up it will go to VfD. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like the sort of thing Clifford Pickover does; but I don't remember it specifically. Whether this should, if true, save it from VfD is another question. Septentrionalis 19:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mnenta

message: I nominated Template:ImportantLabeledEquation up for deletion (this was a bit discussed above, see  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Dotted framebox around formulas). I myself think that dotted box looks ugly, and indenting should be enough to display a math equation or defintion. Oleg Alexandrov 18:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere there one also can find Template:Calculus2 which is not necessary anymore, as it is just an old version of Template:Calculus. Oleg Alexandrov 00:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dotted box template up for deletion 

message: :(Moved to here from my talk page.) linas 17:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Hv, If you know of a better category, please recategorize as appropriate. I was attempting to do a broad cleanup; the articles I placed in :Category:Integer sequences I had found scattered about :Category:Numbers, :Category:Integers, :Category:Number theory, :Category:Number sequences, a few in some odd corners, and a few without any cats at all. Rather than having them scattered all about, I thought I'd at least pull them into one place.  There may be a better way of organizing these, but I don't know of one/can't think of one at this time.  If you have ideas, let me know.  At any rate,  quasiperfect number seemed a better fit there than elsewhere.  linas 16:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Hm, maybe :Category:Divisor-related sequences, since there seems to be a dozen or so that can be loosely defined in this way, e.g. abundant number. linas 17:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: And then, there's :Category:Totient-related sequences as well; e.g. highly cototient number. Is there a common name for these things?  linas 17:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Sequences can be finite, of course, but this category might be better named :Category:Kinds of integer (or Types or Classes). Sequences should be kept for those where the order matters, like Fibonacci sequence or John Conway's Speak-and-say sequence. Septentrionalis 19:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I saw Linas put primitive semiperfect number in :Category:Integer sequences and I thought that it was very odd to call it a sequence, but I forgot to follow up on it. How about something like :Category:Divisibility properties? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's a divisibility property.  How about :Category:Properties of natural numbers?  Or maybe a List of properties of natural numbers. --Trovatore 20:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Category:Integer properties is shorter, if a bit looser. But presumably a description could explain that it is appropriate for properties defined over more restricted sets as well, such as naturals or positive integers. Hv 23:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Or just make sure the articles somewhere say the property only applies to non-negative/positive integers. They probably should anyway. Septentrionalis 23:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd prefer :Category:Properties of integers.  Somehow "integer properties" sounds like something that's an integer and at the same time a property. --Trovatore 00:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like Trovatore's suggestion. Oleg Alexandrov 01:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally I think "Divisor-related numbers" is horrible.  Every number is divisor-related (for example, it has divisors, is a divisor of other numbers, etc).  The things in the category are not numbers, but rather properties of numbers, and the name should reflect that. --Trovatore 01:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: And just in passing, I really wouldn't look to MathWorld, or PlanetMath either, as an example of how to do anything. --Trovatore 01:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A category such as :Category:Divisors of integers would be useful, and could be a subcategory of both the 'integer sequences' and 'number theory' categories. It would not just hold sequences, but I think people get a bit hypnotised by the sequence thing. Charles Matthews 10:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Taken literally, which categories usually are, this would be coterminous with :Category:Integer. I presume this is not what is meant; but what is meant? Septentrionalis 14:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Quite a lot of number theory takes an integer n, looks at its set of divisors (a multiset, if you want) and then defines some function f(n) via that multiset. So, it's a substantial topic, and not really a tautologous thing either. Charles Matthews 14:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfectly true (pun unintentional). And now I see what you mean. If the whole category becomes :Category:Properties of integers, the subcat should be :Category:Properties of divisors or even :Category:Properties of divisors of integers (although I'd rather not go there). I will propose a move of the whole category now, to move that part of this discussion where it will do something. Septentrionalis 15:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Which is precisely why "divisor-related numbers" is a bad name.  If you have a category called "foo numbers", the individual articles should logically be about individual foo numbers.  (So we shouldn't have any categories called "foo numbers".)  (Maybe that was your point--I can't tell from the comment above and haven't bothered to trace through the history to see which comments are yours.) --Trovatore 06:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a :Category:Prime numbers which contains articles about related theorems. linas 23:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Integer sequences]]

message: User: has recently added a number of links to Visualstatistics.net and vstat.net. A number of the pages on this site about social science topics (e.g. slavery) are a mix of facts and patent nonsense, and I have thus removed them. I have no idea about the quality of the math and statistics pages linked, e.g. at multiple correlation, but it would be a good idea if someone double checked them. - SimonP 03:20, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
:the Multiple correlation link looks somewhat simple-minded but not utter bilge, at least at a glance. Septentrionalis 22:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Visualstatistics.net

message: The word Math (as opposed to Maths) is quite jarring for many Brits, and to me it feels somewhat too informal for a category title anyway. How about moving articles in this category to :Category:Mathematical lists? This is a task which bots can perform fairly easily, I believe. Lupin 23:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. If agreed on the change, my bot can take care of it. (However, under no circumstances will I rename my bot from mathbot to mathsbot :) Oleg Alexandrov 00:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it should be renamed (the category, not the bot), see Category talk:Mathematics stubs for a precedent. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Picking nits, "Mathematics lists" could be interpreted by someone who knew nothing as being "Lists of various (kinds of) mathematics". I can't think of a  meaning for "Mathematical lists" other than "lists of a mathematical nature". So I slightly prefer the latter. But I'm really not that bothered. Lupin 15:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I actually already moved the articles. Should we formally ask for the :Category:Math lists to be deleted, or can an admin among us just quickly get rid of it? Oleg Alexandrov 02:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: rename [[:Category:Math lists]] 

message: Goodnight guys and gals, I hope you enjoy playing with blahtex.
Dmharvey Talk 02:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  now I'm off to bed 

message: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_29#Arc_Sine --R.Koot 14:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  vfd 

message: Is this article salvagable; does it even make sense? Law of information --R.Koot 15:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't make any sense out of it. When I searched the internet I found a discussion on a wiki about evolution. Markus Schmaus 17:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I put it on VFD here. Samohyl Jan 17:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law of information