Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2007/Jun

message: Sorry to bring this up again, but two of us disagree rather strongly on whether one should define first the neighbourhood of a point, or the neighbourhood of a set, with no compromise in sight. 
While the issue may be trivial, the concept of neighbourhood is important enough in mathematics, that perhaps more people should get involved. The discussion is at Talk:Neighbourhood (mathematics)#Which comes first: neighborhood of a point or of a set?. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topologists, help wanted at [[neighbourhood (mathematics)]] 

message: Why does :Template talk:Numerical algorithms exist when its template does not? JRSpriggs 08:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admin error! I have fixed it. There is an archived discussion concerning the former template here. Physchim62 (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I forgot to delete it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JRSpriggs probably knows about this already, but for those who don't: you can use  to tag a talk page whose main article is deleted, to have the talk page deleted as well. There is a list of these templates at Template:Deletiontools. CMummert · talk 16:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Physchim62 for fixing the problem. Thanks to CMummert for the pointer to Deletiontools; I was not aware of it. However, I probably would not have used the "db-talk" template in this case because I had forgotten that the template was deleted (not paying enough attention); so I did not know why the talk page was there without a template. I do not necessarily think that leaving the talk page for a little while after the article is gone is a bad idea, but there should be some indication on it of what happened to the article and that the talk page will be deleted eventually. JRSpriggs 07:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's always admin discretion to leave a talk page when the main article has been deleted, but usually such situations are simple errors (admins are only human, after all!). Thanks for bringing it to people's attention. Physchim62 (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphan talk page 

message: I have been going through the Z articles, and I have found quite a few stubs in the zero section, Zero_ideal, Zero_set, Zero_tensor, Zerosumfree_monoid, Zero_matrix, Zero_module, Zero_order. Is there any way we can unify these articles in a meaningful way. As it stands I don't see these articles growing all that much. Perhaps we could create something along the lines of the List of prime numbers article. Maybe "List of mathematics terms that include zero".--Cronholm144 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zero set clearly has potential to be expanded into a solid article; Zero order may have as well, and I would give Zerosumfree monoid the chance to flourish or perish on its own merits (a redirect might be more appropriate). The other four articles are all zero elements/objects in one way or another, and there isn't much one can say about them individually. There may indeed be scope here for a list, or other unifying article, on such zero objects: in which case, "go for it C"!
Done List_of_zero_terms with redirects in place. I didn't redirect Zero matirx, just relisted it. Now all of the horribly weak stubs can grow together in one place. Feel free to move the page to a better name, just be sure to warn me so I can reset the redirects to the appropriate locations--Cronholm144 18:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero 

message: There is a proposed policy at Wikipedia:Flagged revisions about stable versions. The idea is that some pages would be "flagged" and then the flagged version would be shown by default to users who aren't logged in.  This has obvious implications for vandalism fighting and quality control.  
This has been in development for years, but now the code is apparently finished modulo final approval. Although it is still not certain that flagged versions will be enabled on en.wikipedia.org, the proposal is an attempt to determine some community consensus on the issue.  — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagged revisions (stable versions) 

message: The article Non Universality in Computation has come to my attention. While the papers by Selim Akl that it cites don't appear to be completely incorrect, they are not actually reflective of classical computability theory because they place restrictions on the models of computation that are not permitted in the standard theory of computability. In particular, the papers assume some sort of time scale such that "computers" must complete calculations in a certain number of steps, which is incompatible with the standard definitions.
So while the articles are not completely incorrect, some of the claims that Akl makes are  not correct, or overstated at least, and these claims are repeated in the WP article.  The claims were also added to the Turing machine article, but someone else removed them. 
I think that there is a place on WP for this information, once it has been rephrased to use standard terminology. But the article as it stands is likely to leave readers with false impressions.  
I have asked the author of the WP article, User:Ewakened, to comment here, and I would appreciate hearing other opinions on the matter. CMummert · talk 23:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first cited paper by Aki (that the article is based on) seems to argue quite reasonably that the standard model of computability is not adequate. But there are some unfortunate confusing statements in the introduction that sound like they try to provide a counterexample to universality (in the classical sense) of the Turing machine. This is what went into the WP article. It becomes clearer later on in the paper that the author understands universality differently and basically searches for its meaning by a series of examples. In my opinion, not notable. Jmath666 07:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with article in "unconventional computation" 

message: My username was recently changed from CMummert to CBM (log). This change will be seen in page histories and your watchlist, if my user pages are on it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change:  CMummert &rarr; CBM 

message: Prod had expired; de-prodded. --Trovatore 03:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Normal set]] on AfD 

message: The recently created article Lie algebra bundle starts with the word 'definition' and consists of a rather dull definition and a list of 9 references. I cannot even think of a tag to place on it (if it's not straight AfD) — any ideas? Arcfrk 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a terrible start to an article on a worthy subject. Lie algebra bundles are rather important in the theory of connections (as adjoint bundles). I suggest that the best thing to do is to get the talk page going. Geometry guy 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For now I've added a  tag.  --LambiamTalk 19:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call! So good in fact, that Salix Alba and I tried simultaneously to do just that. He won :) Geometry guy 20:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for so promptly obeying my command :)  --LambiamTalk 22:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lie algebra bundle 

message: I nominated one of us, David Eppstein, for administrator. If you are familiar with David's work, you are welcome to voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/David Eppstein. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pleased to say David Eppstein's nomination passed with 87 users in favor and none opposed, which is a remarkable show of support. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Eppstein for admin 

message: There's some discussion about deleting it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000000000000 (number) 2nd nomin. Someone asked "Is there a Wikiproject or something discussing these? [large numbers]". I thought perhaps the members of this wikiproject might be interested. --Itub 12:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I supposed that such a project would exist, but I tried Wikipedia:Wikiproject numbers with no success. It's with a capital N. :) --Itub 15:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD for [[1000000000000 (number)]] 

message: I thought I would start a new section on this, so that the old ones can be archived. Today I have done some of the things I promised to do.
* I have made some progress on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Importance. I have not yet summarized/developed the discussions here on context, but I have come up with a table of priority/importance descriptors, which I hope will prove to be more helpful than the general descriptors of WP 1.0.
* I have removed our own "peripheral/trivial" description for low importance articles and replaced it (temporarily) with the WP 1.0 "specialist" description. Untimately, I think we should replace all of the WP 1.0 descriptors by our own ones, because the former have many flaws. I intend to feed these thoughts back to the WP 1.0 project.
* I have added an additional row to the priority ratings to emphasise that there is a lower rating than low, namely "unrated". This is where the terms "peripheral" and/or "trivial" may apply, although not always. Sometimes an article could be not sufficiently relevant, or might be too specialized or technical, for it to be worth rating within this project.
* I have threaded the word "priority" a little bit more into the whole system in order to clarify the point, which User:Arcfrk articulated previously, that "importance" ratings are about how important it is for this project to have a good article on a subject, rather than an endorsement of the absolute importance of the subject. In particular, just as quality gradings use terms such as "A-Class", it may be more helpful to use terms like "Top-priority" for importance ratings. Geometry guy 22:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree priority is a nicer word. The description on importance linked above seems a good start. Nice to emphesis that its for editors, if it was for readers you could say thats its OR. --Salix alba (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest that we go ahead with renaming everything, as there have been no objections here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance ratings progress 

message: I've been looking at the new math pages for a couple of months now, and one thing I've observed really has me puzzled. From time to time, somebody hangs a "category" tag on a redirect page.
That really doesn't make any sense to me. What purpose does such a tag serve? I would just take the tags off, but I've encountered a few editors who seem quite vehement about keeping them in place (although they haven't explained why this matters in terms that I can understand). So I'm asking the question here. Should we have a general policy about category tags on redirect pages? Thanks!  DavidCBryant 16:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument in favor of it is that it allows a user to browse categories like a topical index. The argument against is that the point of categories is to categorize articles, not topics. I usually remove categories from redirects when I see them and then forget about it if someone reverts me. There general WP policy does not forbid them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that in general categories in redirects should be avoided, but they might be useful in a few cases when an article is called by two different names that are not universally known, and you want both names to be listed in the category to make it more accessible. I'm thinking of cases such as Zucchini/Courgette or Eggplant/Aubergine. (Note that none of those use categories in the redirect page, but perhaps they should.) I've noticed that when a redirect is listed in a category page it appears in italics, which can help in identifying them. --Itub 08:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories and #redirect pages 

message: Started monumental paper, please feel free to chip in.  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 15:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances]] 

message: I've nominated Fermat's last theorem for A-Class review. This article gets a lot of attention, pop-culture links, and (of course) vandalism, so I thought it might be worth giving the mathematical content a brush-up. Geometry guy 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fermat's last theorem 

message: Please take a look at talk:Boolean algebra#Revisiting naming. --Trovatore 23:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisiting naming of "Boolean algebra" article 

message: I've put together a tentative infobox for articles on specific graphs (and, in a few cases, graph families).  I'd like some feedback on the template before I deploy it on 19 articles, particularly from someone who knows more about graph theory and can better point out which properties are most important to mention. ~ Booya Bazooka 22:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I'd suggest is changing the title so it appears inside the box. You might like to look at Template:Infobox Polyhedron which is similar. --Salix alba (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Template:Infobox graph is now operational. ~ Booya Bazooka 20:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox graph 

message: The proposal to delete Zaimi-Marku inequality may well make sense, but the people commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaimi-Marku inequality aren't being very intelligent about it yet. Michael Hardy 23:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed deletion 

message: I've proposed that the two articles named Partial fraction decomposition and Partial fraction decomposition over the reals be merged into the article named Partial fraction. You can explain why this is a terrible idea at, respectively:
*Talk:Partial fraction#Merge with Partial fraction decomposition, and
*Talk:Partial fraction#Merge with Partial fraction decomposition over the reals.
 --LambiamTalk 08:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merges to Partial fraction 

message: Hello again everyone, thanks for your swift action on the K articles (Kappa statistic is the only one left). I have found more articles in need of attention so here goes. :)--Cronholm144 06:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jacobi-Lie bracket is a clear AfD case. Arcfrk 06:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it just a redirect to Lie derivative? Geometry guy 09:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I still think we need a statistician to look at kappa statistic. It seems to be that this has developed into a general concept of which Cohen's kappa and Fleiss' kappa are the key examples. I've added a bit to the lead, anyway. Geometry guy 12:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we have worse stubs than this one. Jarnik's theorem is more troublesome. I wasn't able to find any reference to such a result known by this name. Of course Vojtech Jarnik proved many things, and there are a couple of notable results called Jarnik's theorem, one in diophantine approximation, another about the existence of lim sups of difference quotients (mentioned by Erdos in the Annals, no less). However, neither of them are the result which this article is attempting to state. Geometry guy 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed the math cat from the second of these. The first is a wiktionary link, so I've removed it from the list, as suggested. Geometry guy 09:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More weak stubs 

message: *Kaczmarz method--one sentence
*Kendall's W--three sentences
*Jacobi-Lie bracket--two sentences
*Jarnik's theorem--one sentence
*Jensen-Shannon divergence--two sentence and two references...
*Jenkins-Traub method--one and one source
:Jacobi-Lie bracket is a clear AfD case. Arcfrk 06:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it just a redirect to Lie derivative? Geometry guy 09:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I still think we need a statistician to look at kappa statistic. It seems to be that this has developed into a general concept of which Cohen's kappa and Fleiss' kappa are the key examples. I've added a bit to the lead, anyway. Geometry guy 12:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we have worse stubs than this one. Jarnik's theorem is more troublesome. I wasn't able to find any reference to such a result known by this name. Of course Vojtech Jarnik proved many things, and there are a couple of notable results called Jarnik's theorem, one in diophantine approximation, another about the existence of lim sups of difference quotients (mentioned by Erdos in the Annals, no less). However, neither of them are the result which this article is attempting to state. Geometry guy 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weak:

message: *Juxtaposition--shouldn't be a math article
*Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries--I don't know what to do with this
: I've removed the math cat from the second of these. The first is a wiktionary link, so I've removed it from the list, as suggested. Geometry guy 09:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other:

message: The term "Boolean algebra" usually means (to mathematicians) a type of algebraic structure, and (to non-mathematicians) a way of manipulating propositional variables. My last try at gathering a consensus on how to disambiguate, went nowhere, and we still have the problem. I'm trying again at talk:Boolean algebra#naming -- trying again, hopefully with a statement of the problem that takes into account what I learned from the last discussion. --Trovatore 08:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, of course sometimes mathematicians, also, use the "way of manipulating variables" sense of the word. The point is that there are two quite distinct meanings, and there are in fact two articles (though both need significant improvement), but Boolean algebra itself needs (IMHO) to be a disambiguation page because neither of the two well-demarcated meanings is in fact primary. --Trovatore 09:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason to have different articles for Quotient ring and for Modular arithmetic, for example, is not that one is a count noun for abstract algebraic structures and the other a mass noun for a collection of mathematical operations, but that modular arithmetic involves only one very specific class of quotient rings Z/mZ. Suppose that class was an object of serious mathematical study in its own right, as a subfield of Ring theory, and we had an article on those "Modular rings" (as they are sometimes called). Then (in my opinion) there would be no very good reason to separate the articles on (1) the algebraic structures that are these "modular rings", and (2) the "modular arithmetic" of such structures. I still don't see what makes Boolean algebra so different. We could of course make a dab page, both of whose disambiguating links point to the same article. :) But please weigh in with your insights at Talk:Boolean algebra#naming -- trying again.  --LambiamTalk 11:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This reminds me a bit of a common situation in which editors debate the choice of words in the lead of an article whose content is inadequate. In that case, a good piece of advice is to improve the content and then write the lead. Any disagreements about the content can then be resolved during the course of improving the article rather than on the talk page, and once the content is good, it is usually pretty easy to write a good lead. Maybe something like that is needed here. Once the content is right, the names of the articles might be less contentious. Geometry guy 11:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Having said that... a compromise solution occured to me (see the article talk page), motivated by the observation that there is a category here, :Category:Boolean algebra. Now, like any self-respecting category, this ought to have a main article, presumably called Boolean algebra, which should neither be a dab, nor focus on one of the particular meanings of the term. The particular meanings could then be elaborated in subarticles. Geometry guy 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Mainly because of links. Editors repeatedly add wikilinks to Boolean algebra, intending one meaning or the other (and generally it's quite well-defined which meaning), without bothering to check whether the article actually reflects that meaning. I don't see that changing. If the link goes to the wrong article it may stay that way for a long time. If it goes to a dab page, presumably someone will notice and do something about it. --Trovatore 18:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article I am suggesting would, of course, begin with a dab header to the two main meanings. The advantage of this approach, however, is that even if editors don't notice that they should disambiguate, a link to the main article is still useful, and possibly even educational. Geometry guy 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not the article that either sort of editor is intending to link to. --Trovatore 19:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So an editor of either persuasion will at some point fix it. Meanwhile, readers might even benefit :) Geometry guy 19:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how, as in my opinion there is no sensible way to write such an article, except by making it primarily about the mass-noun sense, which gives us the current linking problem, but just reversed. --Trovatore 19:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, there is also George Boole, the algebra of sets, and numerous other issues in the category to be discussed. But, if your mind is so made up, Trovatore, that you are not able even to imagine alternatives to your point of view, then why bring the issue to WT:WPM? I made another suggestion above, which is to make the content of the articles match your vision. You may be contested, because this is not www.trovatore.com, but at least content would be added to the articles. Geometry guy 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boolean algebra again 

message: Could someone take a look at the above page?  It's newly created, and a little incoherent at the moment.  I've wikified a couple of the links, but anyone who's familiar with the term might want to have a look.  Thanks!  -- simxp (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem? It seems clear to me, except for the use of "almost completely" for "not quite 100%" instead of the usual mathematical meanings of "almost". I'll see if I can fix that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You were looking at a version several revisions later than the initial request. The diff between the versions can be seen here.  --LambiamTalk 23:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Signal subspace]] 

message: So here's an idea I'll throw out for a new image, which maybe can be hammered out into something agreeable to everyone.  Draw a function that oscillates infinitely many times.  Start with some up and down humps that get smaller and smaller, then put some "dot dot dots", then some more humps that get larger.  When you draw horizontal slabs for a level, there will now be pieces that get smaller and smaller.  So hopefully the idea that is conveyed is that for a slab level you need to multiply the height of a slab by a "width", but here the "width" must be some kind of measure thing.  
This kind of picture would (hopefully) avoid the the "it's just inverting the function and Riemann integrating" pitfall that several people have mentioned.  On the other hand, it illustrates a right way to interpret the Lebesgue integral as a Riemann integral that has been discussed above.  In particular, it still captures this slicing up the range idea, while indicating that all the "nastiness" gets pushed to understanding measures of these preimage sets.  Boy, I guess it'd be nice if I actually made a picture, but I'll leave that to someone more industrious for now.  --C S (Talk) 18:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for a new image

message: Interest in maintaining the portal seems to be at an all-time-low. I guess it had been heroically and almost single-handedly maintained by Fropuff for a while, but he appears to be less active on Wikipedia these days: Tompw was another vital contributor, who may or may not still be interested in the project. The "article of the week" would have broken last week and this week, if I had not repeated Golden ratio and then copied an old portal article (the Pythagorean theorem) into the latest slot.
Although I maintained the page in Fropuff's absense (with Fractal, Map projection and Golden ratio, and thanks to suggestions and advice from this forum), I doubt I am sufficiently heroic to keep this up on my own (and admire Fropuff all the more that he did). I would therefore propose to continue the process, which I started this week with Pythagorean theorem, to recycle old portal articles in order, omitting only those which no longer meet our standards. Comments welcome, volunteers even more so.
In addition to this proposal, there is a more general point I would like to make. One of the reasons I would prefer to reuse old portal articles (for the time being) is that it is extremely difficult to find additional mathematics articles which are suitable. Among our articles of Bplus quality and above, the ones that are sufficiently accessible and appealing for the portal have already been used. Some editors may have noticed that in s, I am being a bit harsh on articles that are less accessible than they could be (and have tweaked the B and Bplus descriptors in the grading scheme to reflect this). This does not mean I believe that an article on an advanced mathematical topic should be accessible to the layman, only that each article should be as accessible as is appropriate for its content.
I encourage everyone to create more articles that could appear on the portal! Geometry guy 19:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, probably "portal interest" is an oxymoron, and "apathy" would be a more appropriate adjective. I wish I had the talent for controversy that KSmrq has used to generate interest in Integral! Anyway, things being as they are, and the portal being dull, I've recycled some old articles. This will satisfy the "article of the week" up to week 40 of this year. Can someone set a wiki-alarm clock? Geometry guy 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want controversy, pick someone's favorite article and have the Portal:Mathematics cite it as an example of how not to do mathematics -- the substandard article of the week. JRSpriggs 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics portal 

message: A "" template has been added to the article Somer pseudoprime, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy).  You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.
I'm including this warning here rather than on the page creator's page because the creator was an anonymous IP address that hasn't been active since 2005, and since it's likely to get more appropriate attention here. —David Eppstein 04:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has an OEIS link; A085046, which is noticeably better than our article in explaining these. They alternate between odd squares and (even squares minus one); I have no idea why they're called pseudoprimes. I am not tempted to contest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we need to be careful about allowing entries that are only sourced by OEIS.  I've learned something about their process from someone who accepted and edited submissions.  They basically accept any sequence that people submit.  In some cases, cranks will submit some semi-garbage, and then the editors and some others can clean it up into something reasonable.  They aim to collect all interesting number sequences.  Wikipedia has a different goal.  We generally want recognized scholarly work.  --C S (Talk) 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how the formula in the article generates A085046, and looking at A085046 I don't see why these should be called pseudoprimes. All but the first two are composite: either D2 or D2−1. And what has Somer (Lawrence Somer?) got to do with this? What does it mean that the only Google hits for "Somer pseudoprime" are to this article?  --LambiamTalk 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a typo in the formula; someone got confused by the even or odd case. Chan-Ho's explanation seems good for the absence of hits.  But if it's going away, why worry? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somer pseudoprime 

message: I've nominated Non-universality in computation for deletion. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 26#Help with article in "unconventional computation".  --LambiamTalk 13:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Dhaluza has extended the discussion of this issue to the Village Pump. EdJohnston 18:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Non-universality in computation]] on AFD 

message: In response to a request made some time ago, I have, from time to time, been checking unsigned ratings and signing and dating them. 
In the course of doing this I found a few FA-Class articles which don't, in my opinion, currently meet the featured article criteria (which is a requirement for FA-Class in the grading scheme). The articles I have in mind are Cryptography, Galileo Galilei and Monty Hall problem, which I reckon are about Bplus-Class.
Now I can't sign a rating I don't agree with, and I don't want to pass them over. Does anyone think these meet the criteria? Geometry guy 12:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the featured articles at least, there are links from the talk page to the discussions when the FA status was granted or reviewed.  Those discussions may provide insight into what problems were seen during the review. You can always nominate an FA article for review, but that will be more beneficial if you're willing to stay with the review and fix the issues raised, since the reviewers are often reluctant to make even trivial changes themselves. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem here is that FA standards have changed so much even in the last year, and only Monty Hall problem has been reviewed recently. This last review began with an unedifying argument over inline citation and never fully recovered in my view, although a lot of effort was poured into copyediting. I'm reluctant to take it to FAR or GA/R again, although reviewers at the latter are working on improving their process, and do now quite often make edits to articles themselves. Geometry guy 15:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Concerning Cryptography, I've found your (signed) comment a bit, ahem, cryptic. Plenty of inline citation, and what about the lead? Arcfrk 05:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is a bit. I'm getting into the bad habit of thinking everyone knows WP:LEAD back-to-front. But forget about what I think, that isn't why I'm posting here. What do you think about the article? Geometry guy 10:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I made another pass at Sylvester's sequence. Criticism welcome. —David Eppstein 15:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks David, that was quick! I never knew that the Sasakian Einstein metrics on spheres were linked to this sequence. Very nice. Geometry guy 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some featured articles, or are they? 

message: In addition to Nash equilibrium, Best response and Probability theory, Sylvester's sequence appears not to meet the criteria. The problem is again the lead, which at the moment is a definition/first section, rather than an overview. This should be fairly easy to fix, but I think other editors may be able to do a better job than I can. Anyone? Geometry guy 15:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made another pass at Sylvester's sequence. Criticism welcome. —David Eppstein 15:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks David, that was quick! I never knew that the Sasakian Einstein metrics on spheres were linked to this sequence. Very nice. Geometry guy 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some [[WP:GA|Good Articles]], or are they?

message: *Ecliptic latitude, Ecliptic longitude
*Eddy covariance
*Edge of chaos
** Notable popular idea in complex systems theory.  I don't see the problem? -- Jheald 11:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should they be listed?

message: *Eclectic probability Probably not ;) although it might be worth an AfD to prod someone into sourcing it. Geometry guy 11:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Carl - of course I was joking: what I was really saying, beneath the attempted humour, is that if you and Trovatore have both edited it, then it is obviously an important topic and so doesn't need to be prodded. Bon courage with the expansion! Geometry guy 14:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that the absence of references in an article is in no sense a justification for deletion!
The article has an identity crisis, and you should ask Charles Matthews, who edited it recently, for suitable references. Lang's Diophantine Geometry would be good as a general reference. Arcfrk 10:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I merged it with Church-Turing thesis.  The term is rarely used anymore except in that context, and the article was really just a poor version of the Church-Turing thesis article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should they be prodded?

message: *Ecological correlation, Ecological fallacy
*Edge-transitive, Edge-transitive graph
::This one is the usual distinction between geometric things with edges (polyhedra, tilings, etc) and combinatorial things with edges (graphs), visible also e.g. in the split between vertex (geometry) and vertex (graph theory). It doesn't help that the polyhedron article links to the MathWorld graph article... Any attempt to merge the two article would have to wrestle with some subtle definitional differences, e.g. one can have a polyhedron with an edge-transitive graph as its skeleton that is not edge-transitive geometrically (simplest example: a scalene triangle). —David Eppstein 10:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for constant posts, if others feel it is too much the details could be moved to a project subpage, but I think this is an appropriate place to look for comments. You might also look through User:VeblenBot/Oldpages which lists some pages that have not been edited for over a year. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Rumours of my extinction have been greatly exaggerated. The Mathematics Portal 14:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger? + poorly written

message: This looks like it might be a fairly interesting AFD discussion.  I expect there may be conflicting opinions even among members of the WikiProject, so I thought I would advertise it here.  --C S (Talk) 14:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD on [[Probability derivations for making low hands in Omaha hold 'em]] 

message: User:Gregbard has created a new  template and put it at the bottom of some logic articles, including a few in math logic. Now, I have to say it's quite a bit slicker than the navigational templates we've seen in the past. It's relatively unobtrusive, just a thin horizontal bar across the bottom of the article with a "show" button
in the right-hand corner. If you click on "show" it pops up a bunch of subfields and related articles.
There's at least one of his categorizations I don't entirely agree with, but that can be dealt with. The question is, is this sufficiently different from the nav templates we've rejected in the past, to reconsider whether to allow it? I'm undecided myself. --Trovatore 08:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like show/hide wikitables, and I think this is a very appropriate use of them. I don't know what arguments have been made in the past, but in my view, navigation templates are not entirely encyclopedic content because they "label" the article and link to other articles without providing relevance or justification: they provide a "See also" section with no option to prune the list. On the other hand, for many readers, they are a great convenience. So I find a "collapsible collapsed" navigation template a nice compromise: unobtrusive, but available. I think we should consider doing that with more of our navigation templates: it is quite straightforward to add this functionality. Geometry guy 17:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New nav template on logic articles 

message: I've recently started to receive emails containing "temporary passwords" to my WP login account. I beleive that these are what one gets if one checks the "I forgot my passord" box on the WP login page. As it happens, I haven't forgotten it, and someone else is making these requests. Being slightly paranoid, I am concerned that someone is hoping to catch one of these emails in-flight (they're mailed out in cleartext, so the temporary password is clearly visible), and is thus hoping to hack my account. Any recommendations on how I should deal with this? Ignore? Retry? Abort? linas 23:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how anyone could catch one "in flight" unless they have access to your ISP or a major carrier, in which unlikely case you aren't safe anyway. More likely they are just trying to annoy you. You can ignore the emails and use your ordinary password. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is definitely worth reporting to someone who can look into the source. Depending on where you read your mail, there might be an easy way for someone to tap communications close to you. But even if your account is never compromised, the attack (if that's what it is) bears investigation. And if it is not an attack, but a piece of misbehaving software, that is still worth investigating. I wish I could tell you who to contact, but this is new to me. --KSmrqT 04:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came across this before when the attack was malicious. I seem to recall that the IP responsible was blocked WP:AN/I is probably your first place to look for assistance. --Salix alba (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hack attempts/paranoia 

message: Hey everyone, June is almost over and it is time for a new collaboration of the month WP:MATHCOTM and we need some votes so we can decide what article will receive this high honor. Mosey on down and place your vote or go ahead and suggest a previously unlisted article, all contributions are welcome!--Cronholm144 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is that [[WP:MATHCOTM|time of the month]] again 

message: I have discovered, to my great surprise, that there is no :Category:Symplectic geometry. All symplectic articles are being filed under :Category:Symplectic topology instead, even though  the vast majority of them is really about geometry. I was wondering what people here think of renaming the category? Arcfrk 06:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the rename. Symplectic topology is an important modern branch of symplectic geometry. In the long run, I expect it will make a good subcat. Also note that the same issue applies to the Symplectic geometry article, which is currently a redirect! Geometry guy 09:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is priority one on my to-do list, but until I graduate, I can't justify writing articles for Wikipedia when I should be writing my dissertation!  :)  (I shouldn't even be checking my watchlist as often as I do.)  But if anyone has the drive, time, and energy now, more power to you.  VectorPosse 18:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nonsense. No one outside your thesis committee is likely to read your dissertation, and they may not read all of it; but people all over the world and for years to come will read your Wikipedia contributions! Besides, once you have your sheepskin in hand, you'll likely be employed as an assistant professor whose tenure track duties include trying to teach first-year calculus to students who don't want to learn it. After a year or two of that you may not wish to explain anything to anyone who is not already a mathematician.  --KSmrqT 23:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disturbingly close to the truth, I'm sure.  Hopefully the world will not have to wait more than a few more months!  VectorPosse 07:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If getting a diploma were fun, everbody would want one. But do not despair. Some students will be like you; they will be bright and curious and motivated and will inspire their teachers. You may find it refreshing to relate to faculty as a colleague rather than as a student. You can start paying off debts instead of accumulating more. Besides, is it so bad to hope that your thesis is not the best work you will ever do?  --KSmrqT 08:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Very wise! Meanwhile I think we should rename the pages/categories as recommended. Geometry guy 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this part should be pretty easy to take care of for now.  What I had in mind for the (hopefully) near future is a complete rewrite of all this stuff (on the symplectic and contact side—the issues are similar for both).  VectorPosse 07:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Oleg has suggested to me that for a rename, it would be best to take the category to CFD. An alternative would be just to create :Category:Symplectic geometry and make :Category:Symplectic topology (which doesn't have much edit history) into a subcat. Any preferences? I'm happy to do the CFD nomination if that is what people prefer. Geometry guy 16:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Best just to do it.  It's a bit technical for CfD, and everyone here seems to think it's pretty uncontroversial good sense.  Best just to be bold and go ahead.  Jheald 16:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but do what? I have change the cats in all symplectic geometry articles which are not symplectic topology. So do we move :Category:Symplectic topology, or create :Category:Symplectic geometry. My own preference is for the move, to preserve the (admittedly small) edit history. We can then decide whether we want :Category:Symplectic topology to remain as a subcat. However, the move needs an admin, which I am not. Geometry guy 19:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just create a new one, and in the new edit summary say where you're pulling over some of the text from.  We pull text over from one article to another all the time - no difference here.  That way seems much the simplest.  Jheald 20:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symplectic geometry or symplectic topology? 

message: A discussion on the reference desk brought to my attention the existence of two similar articles: (1) adjoint endomorphism, to which "adjoint representation of a Lie algebra" redirects, and (2) adjoint representation. Could someone with a little time and interest look into this apparent duplication? --KSmrqT 04:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the first glance, the first article is about the Lie algebra adjoint representation, and the second article is about the Lie group case. Arcfrk 05:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I suppose, in principle, we could have independent articles. However, these are closely linked, and I think both articles mention both concepts, and both cite Fulton & Harris, where Ad and ad appear together. Anyway, I'm trying to concentrate on integral as the end of the month fast approaches, and the last thing I need is yet another distraction.  --KSmrqT 11:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication of adjoint representation 

message: This article has had a merge tag on for a while now, and it's beyond my knowledge to assess it. Could someone here take a look. Cheers Kevin 08:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Residual sum of squares]]