Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2006/Dec

message: Any one know what is up with the equations on WP?  I recently browsed one of my pet articles (Kt/V)-- and all the equations are gone despite that there were no edits.  The equations in Navier-Stokes equations are also gone.  Interestingly, the equations in Standardized Kt/V are still there.  It looks like there's some error with the equation interpreter-- perhaps due to recent changes discussed above? Nephron  T|C 20:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange... no sooner had I posted the above and they re-appear. Nephron  T|C 20:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equations gone 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Flarn2005 has created a Geometry portal. At the moment is a bit bare bones-ish, so it would be useful if people could contribute to it. Tompw 00:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geometry portal 

message: Discussion of the proposed Scientific citation guidelines seems to have simmered down.  I suspect the guidelines have consensus among math and physics editors. If you have strong feelings about the guidelines, please comment on the talk page. CMummert 01:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines|Scientific citation guidelines]] 

message: I just created a new template, . Hope you all find this helpful! —David Eppstein 06:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks awesome. Well done! --King Bee 19:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea!  But could you briefly explain the difference between the two kinds of id numbers, the one that's merely an integer, and the one that begins with 96f:....?  For the WP reader, is there any advantage of one over the other? Also, I notice you recently updated the Leonidas Alaoglu article's references with the new template, and you explicitly added a JSTOR link to each entry there. Will this continue to be needed? Certainly getting the first page from JSTOR is beneficial for those readers who don't have an institutional subscription to MathSciNet. Also, for post-1995 articles, should we still be trying to find a DOI as well, even when an MR link is present?  Reply on my Talk page if this question is too specific for the project Talk. EdJohnston 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 96f:etc numbering is an older style of MR identification, that lets one determine the year and MSC classification from the id. They've switched to a newer system involving meaningless integer ids. Both work equally well in terms of creating a working link to mathscinet, but perhaps the new system should be preferred as it's the way records on the system identify themselves when you view them. One can often get the jstor or doi link from the mr link (even without a subscription to mathscinet) but I think if a direct link is possible it should be included as well so that WP's content is more self-contained. I am only planning to include mr links for papers that have an actual review available at that link; I don't see the point in linking to mr for the ones that say "no review of this item is planned" and then just send you on to the article itself. —David Eppstein 20:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New MathSciNet template 

message: The javascript thing is sort of nice, but not sufficient to allow different articles on Ω-logic and ω-logic, which we really ought to be able to have. I've left a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Uppercasing of non-Latin letters (including references for the two logics that should be treated, or at least treatable, distinctively).  See what you think. --Trovatore 07:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't solve all the world's problems, including the foibles of some of the terminology used. Assuming that there are distinguishable concepts there, how do the fools who are silly enough to try to make a distinction of two concepts on the basis of the capitalization of a Greek letter used as a symbol deal with disambiguating them in speech?  That might give us a clue as to whether it is a problem even worth our attention, and how to deal with it if it is.  Gene Nygaard 11:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uppercasing again

message: This article contains the text
:Third, the (truncated) series can be used to compute function values approximately (often by recasting the polynomial into the Chlemloid's form and evaluating it with the Chlemshaw's algorithm). 
I cannot find any Google hits for Chlemloid's form or Chlemshaw's algorithm anywhere but in this article or its mirrors. Could this be sneaky vandalism? -- 80.168.226.41 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Third, the (truncated) series can be used to compute function values approximately (often by recasting in the polynomial into the Chebyshev form and evaluating it with the Clenshaw algorithm).
I've reverted to this version of that sentence: it looks at least plausible, given the context. -- 80.168.226.41 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible vandalism in [[Taylor series]] 

message: The next round of nominations for the Wikipedia:Release Version is now open, these are articles which are to go on a CD-release of wikipedia. I've nominated 19 new mathematics articles.
:Number - Pythagorean theorem - Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace - Fermat's Last Theorem - Polar coordinate system - Euclidean geometry - Derivative - Integral - Regular polytope - Cartesian coordinate system - Chaos theory - Circle - Real number - Complex number - Decimal - Infinity - Polynomial -  Statistics - Gottfried Leibniz
which are generally our higher importance topics and of at least B+ status. I guess most of these could do with some a bit of love and care. There may be other articles I've missed which others think should also be nominated. --Salix alba (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious, what work do you think the derivative page needs? It's already a GA. --King Bee 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So good that someone just vandalized it to say that the derivative is "defined as the poopie of a cow."  Isn't anonymous public editing fun!  For as appalling as such vandalism is, I have to tell the truth and say that this particular expression got a chuckle out of that corner of my brain where my junior high self still lives. (BTW, how does one go about reverting a change without messing up other edits that have taken place later?  I was hesitant to try it myself since I figure someone out there knows how to do it better than I do.  But I'd really like to know if there's some fancy trick for it.)  VectorPosse 23:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never mind.  I figured it out.  This new "undo" feature is the bomb!  VectorPosse 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, that is kind of funny that you checked it right after my comment. =) --King Bee 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As you asked, compare the German version de:Differentialrechnung which is an FA. History is very brief, the critical points min/max could do with an illustration, only one application, taylors theorem could do with expansion, week on functions which fails to be continuous, no mention of C-infinity fuctions. Newton-Raphson methods missing (as an example of why derivatives are useful). The generisations section is written at too high a level, using a lot of technical terms the lay reader would not understand, a simple example of a function of more than one variable would help. Week on referencing. Differential equations could do with a mention. Generally OK as a how-to for single valued case, but peters out towards the end. Theres some more comments on Talk:Derivative#GA_Review and Wikipedia:Good_articles/Disputes/Archive_7#Derivative. --Salix alba (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Release Version 0.7 

message: FYI, slashdot.org has evoked  transreal number which is a recreate of a previously deleted article. I think its an prime example of mathematical illiteracy. Oh well. Afd, fix or delete. linas 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the morbidly curious, the Slashdot article is here.  Perspex machine has been AFDed, too; I prodded James Anderson (mathematician).  Lunch 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slashdot of previously deleted [[transreal number]] 

message: A new  has been created. A discussion about it is going on at Talk:Calculus#Re: Addition of Template:Calculus footer. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Calculus footer 

message: Hi, all!
I just put a new article out in the big namespace. Please take a look at it and tell me what you think -- either here, or on my user talk page.
Thanks!  DavidCBryant 02:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the article talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new article about continued fractions 

message: I came across the page List of mathematics articles and am concerned about the self-references in it.  Outside of the  template, the entire page is written as if the reader is an editor of Wikipedia.  This would cause confusion if the page were reused outside of Wikipedia.  After discussing this with User:Oleg Alexandrov, it was suggested that the page could be moved to Wikipedia:List of mathematics articles.  I would support such a move, but he opposed it on the grounds that the page would be difficult to move and that it belongs in the main namespace.  I am seeking further input.  Thanks. Khatru2 04:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what do other subject areas do?  it appears there's a list of physics articles with a similar structure (with exception of a reference to the wikiphysics project).  Lunch 04:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest that the article be split into two articles: (1) one article with the current name which has been stripped of references to Wikipedia stuff; and (2) a new article in Wikipedia space which has the other stuff which was stripped out of the first article, PLUS it include the current article by referrence using the template . That inclusion would have an effect like the following. JRSpriggs 10:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The self-references to the Wikipedia Math Project have to go. If we wish to reference the project we can do so by a portal box which would be perfectly appropriate, but talking about the project in the text makes the article reak of vanity and is completely unencyclopedic.--Jersey Devil 23:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested move of [[List of mathematics articles]] 

message: The article area of a disk could use some work.  It may be the only Wikipedia article justifying the familiar πr2 expression, so it wouldn't hurt to bring it up to civilized standards. Michael Hardy 01:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reproduced the proof by Archimedes on the talk page. (But without the obvious figures.) The article page scares me! Maybe later. --KSmrqT 00:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area of a disk 

message: Proofs of trigonometric identities is, in its present form, a horrible mess.  Please help clean it up. Michael Hardy 19:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I slapped it into :Category:Article proofs, which, by definition, only allows messy, horrible articles. :-) linas 02:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proofs of trigonometric identities

message: I'm encountering some concern about the size of the article Areas of mathematics. I saw a reference to a 64K (= 65,536 byte) limit in somebody's message (Oleg's?) recently.
Anyway, I want to learn more about that. Does anyone know where to look it up? Does the limit apply to the wiki markup file that an author/editor can access? Or does it apply to the XML file (sans images) that the server serves up? I'm certain the 64K limit doesn't count graphics ... I tried to load the Mandelbrot set article the other day, and my poor little box choked on it somewhere between 1.0 and 2.0 Mbytes.  :(
Thanks for the help!  DavidCBryant 20:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Article size is the relavant guideline. AoM is less than 64K, so I think its probably OK. As this is a list type article much of the guideline is not really relavant, and the problems with older browsers has mostly disapeared. Mandelbrot is one if the most image rich pages about, but I am suprised that your prowser chocked. You must have quite an old machine. --Salix alba (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AMD K6, 300 MHz. Dial-up connection. I paid $50 for it, OS and all. I'm a Neanderthal.  ;^>  Thanks for the reference!  DavidCBryant 11:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that AoM is not a place to enforce teh article size rule, unless it gets truley huge, and its very nature should make that avoidable. (I have a Cerelon 333, an even worse processor. However, even with broadband, info arrives at the computer slow enough for my ancient computer to deal with it... internet connections are far slower than internal data transfer - even the original IDE standard from 1994 ran at 3.3MB/sec = 26.4Mb/sec, over three times faster than the most turbo-charged broadband around in the UK today) Tompw (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Big" articles 

message: A well-meaning, new editor has been making some additions to this article.  I don't believe these follow NPOV, but I no longer have the energy to talk to this person.  I tried explaining NPOV doesn't mean putting out one argument followed by counterargument, but somehow this person doesn't seem to understand and takes everything as an accusation of some type.  His/her grasp of the facts and circumstances also seems tenuous.  --C S (Talk) 23:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Manifold Destiny]] 

message: I need an advice on how to group entries in List of operators. Any thoughts?--Planemo 13:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a little out of my area, but I feel that you need more explanation of these transformations. What do the variables mean? What is the transformation used for? It is good that you have pointers to articles for some of them, but every one of them should have a pointer (even if it is a red-link). You described them as "This list includes the most widespread transformations of analytical functions of one argument.". In what sense are they "analytical"? If you mean that they are defined on the complex plane and have complex derivatives everywhere, then you should put them in a category that deals with complex numbers. JRSpriggs 04:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some boilerplate and various links that perhaps addresses JRSpriggs' comments. A merge with list of transforms might be contemplated. There are some generic transforms that don't easily fit in this list.  linas 06:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly recommend the merge. List of operators is where I would look for unary and binary operators (+,- *,/, absolute value). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are functions, not operators and already covered in "left composition" entry (f\circ y \,)--Planemo 17:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And these are functionals; so? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No they all are particular cases of left composition operator.--Planemo 18:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The question is how to group the entries better: by properties (i.e. linearity) or by branch of mathematics where they are used? But where to place such operators as composition or derivative then? Should the functionals be separated or not? Or to create a special section for binary operations such as composition, convolution and inner product? Or maybe group by type of coordinates/parametrization?--Planemo 11:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree the term is too broad, but the list is dedicated to the certain meaning. And what's wrong with arc-length or inverse function? Maybe that they are not liner while most "specialists in operators" work with linear ones?--Planemo 18:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with the non-linear operators is that there are just about zero operator-theoretic results, theorems or facts about them. Taking some random thing and calling it "an operator" seems pointless to me, as it does not suddenly offer new insight, nor does it allow some general theorem to be applied to obtain new results. By contrast, the linear opers have a rich theory and many general theorems that can be applied.  Thus, I'd recommend discarding the entire non-linear section. But perhaps this discussion should be taken to the article talk page. linas 03:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need advice 

message: Luigi Fantappiè could stand a cleanup job.  It seems a touch heavy on the uncritical adoration.  Anville 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luigi Fantappiè 

message: There's a really interesting discussion going on about this article.  The main problem seems to be that it is very difficult to explain what this is.  Unfortunately, currently the article reads something like a diatribe on how the notion of "word problem" is nonsense.  This article seems to have been in this kind of state for over three years.  --C S (Talk) 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Word problem (mathematics education)]] 

message: I'm thinking of putting this article as a FAC, but before I do so, I would love the opinion of a few math editors, so I can get the article even better before letting it be the subject of the scrutiny of the rest of the Wikipedia community.  As I've never been through the featured article process before (nor have I been involved in it), any comments/help with the article would be greatly appreciated. —Mets501 (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good to me, I could not see any specific flaws on a brief scan. Much improved from a couple on months ago. --Salix alba (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  Michael Hardy has done some nice cleanup, so I think I'll give others a chance to input here and then I'll submit it. —Mets501 (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I see many tiny problems, but no big ones. The worst problem is that it is never made clear what subset of R×R the polar coordinates (r,θ) are supposed to range over, and the difficulties at r = 0 are completely ignored. Then there are many statements that are just not quite right; for example in the lead: "For many types of curves, a polar equation is the simplest means of representation; for others, it is the only such means." (my emphasis). The last part is indefensible. If a curve is given by a polar equation F(r,θ) = 0, then we can also describe the curve by a Cartesian equation G(x,y) = 0, where G(x,y) is defined by G(x,y) = F(radius(x,y), angle(x,y)) for suitable functions radius and angle. Finally, several of the citations are to sources that have no authoritative value. At some time there used to be a maths article of the week improvement drive or something like that; perhaps that  could be revived.  --LambiamTalk 00:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I left some comments at Talk:Polar coordinate system. -- Fropuff 00:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Polar coordinate system]] 

message: This is being revised, especially the infamous section 2b about inline citation. It seems to me that even the edits I did not do are in a sensible direction; after some jumping up and down at Wikipedia:Good articles/Review#Johann Sebastian Bach (where it is perhaps clearer than on mathematical articles what sort of points are at issue), some mutual understanding may have been attained. Please come help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:What is a good article?]]

message: If you have an opinion about whether the article should be named "Exclusive or" or "Exclusive disjunction", come on down to Talk:Exclusive disjunction and share your opinion. Samboy 09:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming [[Exclusive disjunction]] [[Exclusive or]]

message: Recently the vector notation on a huge number of pages was changed from bold style (\mathbf{B}) to arrow style (\vec{B}), in an effort to make notation on wikipedia more homogeneous. In paticular the Maxwell's Equations section has been changed.
Is this such a good idea? To begin with, mathematical notation is not in fact consistent, with different persons, groups, countries and even continents often using quite different notation. What is more appropriate to some may be less aprropriate to others.  Notation vary's across fields as well. It doesn't seem wise to impose a single notation for all of Wikipedia when no over all consensus exits.   ObsessiveMathsFreak 15:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wide sweeping changes to alter notation are generally frowned upon (and often reverted). There are numerous such notational issues which have been argued to death on this page (see above and almost any archive page). The upshot always is as long as an article is consistent in its notation don't change it simply because you prefer an alternative notation. We treat differences in spellings (British vs. American) the same way. In Wikipedia, as in life, we need to respect our differences. -- Fropuff 18:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The latter is nice for one reason: It uses semantic markup. However, in the physics, math, and engineering I've seen, bold is more widely used. Perhaps a high-level admin could redefine \vec to produce bold, leaving \overrightarrow to produce \overrightarrow{B}? —Ben FrantzDale 18:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vector Notation 

message: I find the  template to be rather ugly, either with stuff hidden or stuff shown.  I would suggest that it be rewritten keeping only the most relevant calculus topics, instead of the huge amalgam of links, whether they show up or are hidden. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally like it. It is well-organized and quite comprehensive. Relegating it to the end of the article keeps it from being obtrusive. Making it more attractive is worthwhile, but I wouldnt delete any content. - grubber 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This template is very nicely put together, kudos to the editors. It is non-obtrusive in any way to the articals, and doesn't force people to scroll through links and links, looking for what they are looking for; This is much better than having to look in a page of links for what you are looking for. Just one click on the side for a list of pages with your topic. It is very nice, useful, and complete; it is good to have that much information organized that way. - 'Lord Nikon' --00:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like the roman d vs. italic d discussion above, I will insist that footers are another cultural thing. I vaguely remember discovering "cheat sheets" for the first time in high-school, and they seemed to be brilliant way of organizing knowledge. Years later, entering grad school we had to pass "comprehensives", and we were allowed one page of notes. The top-of-the-class, all-grade-A honors student, a girl, came in with the most tightly packed, carefully designed cheat-sheet I'd ever seen, and ace'd the thing, of course (I myself couldn't remember the formula for coriolis forces). There is a debate going on now at WP:physics about a cheat-sheet arrangement of (nasty ugly) collection of thermodynamics formulas; in defense of this ugliness is the argument that the CRC does it this way too. So while I know that the overwhelming majority of mathematicians here absolutely deplore and despise these footers and nav-bars (as I do), I think that, perhaps, in a certain class of articles, these footers are an aid to understanding, and should be allowed instead of being busted down. Live & let live. linas 03:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless the purpose of these footers is different from crib sheets. I support the suggestion of keeping such navigation aids focussed on the most relevant topics. The people who need such navigation aids most are not served by an indiscriminate collection of links to vaguely related articles; before you know it they need a metanavigation aid to navigate the footer. That is simply a matter of being bold: if a link offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from the template. What would bother me is if such a template gets plastered over all articles involving some calculus, but that isn't the case yet and will hopefully remain so.  --LambiamTalk 09:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculus footer 

message: Hi. I have nominated the FA Regular polytope to be review to see if it still complies with the featured article criterias. You are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Regular polytope.
Fred
-Chess 22:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article [[Regular polytope]] up for review 

message: this change at Perfect number by  looks a lot like User:WAREL.  It's his first edit, and the formula is byte-for-byte identical to this edit by , blocked as a sock puppet of User:WAREL.  Did I do right in reverting it?  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definately. Well spotted! :-) Tompw (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: All blocked. Perhaps semi-protection is in order? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that semi-protection makes more sense than full protection. —David Eppstein 20:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:WAREL]] again? 

message: moved all archives with non-standard names to standarized names. E.g. changing "Archive12" to "Archive 12" and leaving a redirect behind. By so doing, GurchBot 2 has messed up the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics and probably many others which use Werdnabot to archive their talk pages. It did not change the Werdnabot invocations to show the new file name for the current archive so Werdnabot added the archived material to the redirects which were left behind. Also, a minor point, GurchBot 2 did not change the archive lists to point at the new file names so they are now all going thru the redirects. This is a real mess. JRSpriggs 03:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have repaired this problem for the Mathematics Project and intend to do so for the Physics Project, but the others will have to fend for themselves. I adjusted our Werdnbot invocation and list of archive file names to reflect the new names given to the files by GurchBot 2. JRSpriggs 04:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies to everyone in this WikiProject for messing up your archives. I intended to change the archive lists and werndabot instructions soon after running the bot, but Christmas got in the way. If anyone notices any other pages that are wrong, feel free to fix them; I will try to find time later today to fix things and everything should be OK within 24 hours – Gurch 12:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GurchBot 2 messed up our archives! But I have repaired them. 

message: I am working on a guideline, Wikipedia:Writing about math. Can you people please look at it? --Ineffable3000 23:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed a bunch of "it's"s to "its"s.  It's pretty ironic to have grammatical errors in an article about how to write math; you should check for more of this. Ryan Reich 23:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Math is not english though. --Ineffable3000 02:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Each mathematics article should have an esoteric explanation." Really?  --LambiamTalk 00:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You wouldn't want to write an article about continuity just saying "continuity is when you can draw a line without lifting the pencil". You would want to talk about "open ball in Domain --> open ball in range", etc.. In my opinion, a simple explanation is necessary too for the noobs. --Ineffable3000 02:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Each article about a proven theorem or lemma should contain a proof." Also for the Four-colour Theorem and the Poincaré conjecture?  --LambiamTalk 01:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said proven theorem. There is no analytical proof for the Four-colour theorem. The Poincare conjecture is a conjecture not a theorem. --Ineffable3000 02:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are both proven.  Lambiam's point is that the proofs of these are generally considered fairly complicated and would take a lot of space.  This is not an uncommon aspect of proofs of major theorems.  --C S (Talk) 01:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see what the problem is!  It's easy enough to include a proof by intimidation for each of your examples.  --C S (Talk) 01:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work. Proof by algorithm / computer-proofs are proofs also and should be included. A link to a script (if available) would be good. --Ineffable3000 02:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you missed my joke entirely.  --C S (Talk) 01:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Comments should be added at Wikipedia_talk:Writing_about_math.  I have my own doubts about all this, which I added there.  --C S (Talk) 01:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you aware that we already have written guidelines? (See WP:MSM.) Also, I have posted some tips here in the last few months. I suggest instead of writing your own guide, you study existing ones. --KSmrqT 01:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read over WP:MSM and I am proposing that we merge some of my ideas into there as a result of this discussion. --Ineffable3000 02:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing about math 

message: I think that the Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky article should be switched from the scope of wikiproject Russian history to wikiproject mathematics since his importance is in the history of mathematics not the history of Russia. NikolaiLobachevsky 06:35:01 12/26/2006 (UTC)
:It can be in both; I'm adding it to WP Mathematics. grendel|khan 16:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lobachevsky Article 

message: There are a number of graph theory articles that I was going to put a  template on, but I couldn't find the right category. Does it go under topology? I couldn't find any graph theory articles already tagged. grendel|khan 16:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Graph theory or its subcategories. —David Eppstein 16:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No, no, I mean the field parameter of ; which field are graph theory articles in? grendel|khan 22:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that. "discrete". Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Discrete mathematics. —David Eppstein 23:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! grendel|khan 07:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do graph theory articles go? 

message: This post recently appeared on the "Portal:Mathematics" talk page. I've taken the liberty of copying it over to this page, where it will probably get more attention.  DavidCBryant 17:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am working on a guideline, Wikipedia:Writing about math. Can you people please look at it? --Ineffable3000 23:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing about math (2) 

message: Paul August, with enthusiastic support, has found a seat on the Wikipedia Arbitrary Committee. (Did I spell that right? ;-D) He joins Charles Matthews, another mathematician. (Why these two fine editors would prefer to settle squabbles rather than write mathematics articles, I cannot imagine.) I congratulate Paul on his success, and look forward to many excellent, even-handed decisions. --KSmrqT 22:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did ask Paul why he was standing ... congratulations to him on his fine showing. Charles Matthews 11:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I tried to call, but all I got was this recorded message telling me to rotate my phone by 90 degrees.  ;0)  Anyway, congratulations Paul! capitalist 06:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations to Paul August 

message: has just moved "Mu-operator" to "μ-operator". This is the third (or is it the fourth?) time someone has done this; on the earlier occasions the move was reversed. My understanding was that we had an agreement to keep the Latinized spelling of the Greek letters in the titles of mathematics articles. Please someone (an administrator) reverse this. JRSpriggs 10:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I even suspect he wrote “µ operator” (with a MICRO SIGN), not “μ operator” (with a GREEK SMALL LETTER MU), and that Wikipedia normalizes Unicode strings in KC form.  If this conjecture is true, this would make the letter μ particularly vulnerable to this sort of zealousness, because the symbol µ is generally simple to type and most people aren't aware of the difference (especially if KC normalization will, indeed, render them identical!). --Gro-Tsen 16:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles with the greek letter mu in their titles 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 18:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards