Talk:Mathematics Subject Classification

message: To all Wikipedians,
I am an artist, architect and an educator. My interest in mathematics is 'cultural'.  The interpretation of form and the ART-iculation of languages of form that keep evolving is of particular interest to me. The logic structures that describe their working principles are of great significance as well.
Over the past 25 years I have been involved in creating and patenting a series of forms that I believe relates to the translation of non-Euclidean principles into vocabularies of forms that preserve the polyhedral 'vertex-space' locations while faces and edges are manipulated to create new and useful shapes and forms.
Structural philosophy is a concept that I can best relate this process to. It deals with thinking about three-dimensional space and ways of expressing new architectural and artistic (even new product) expressions from this basic vocabulary. The concept of philogenetics is another idea. Here the classification of the forms into their respective categories via taxonomies is critical to the 'familial' properties and characteristics of the various species of forms. At this point I have to resort to borrowing concepts and terms from other disciplines to express the ideas that are shared.
There is definitely a "Visual Mathemetics" that we need to formalize. One that relies on intuitive and on some calculation but heavily on modeling with flat sheet materials that are then cut and folded. Instead of the rubber sheet systems we now have a rigid flexible living-hinge behavior that translates into curved edges and compoundedly curved faces. There is a small amount of distortion. The stresses that occur are surprisingly useful in some cases the closures needed are provided by the implosions and negative curvature of the flaps created by the geometric interconnections of sets of circles.
These circular networks are the 'venn' type diagrams of basic boolean processes.There is a symmetry (beauty)in mathematics that is intuitive and artistic that calculations can not embrace or describe. It's the old left and right brain dialectic again. What this process offers is an expanded set of possibilities beyond the standard Euclidean models. This is important in that it offers a consistent methodology for producing an elegant repeated set of forms that can be built regardless of scale. The perplexing ideas here is where in nature do these Non-Euclidean behaviors exist that follow these form proportions? It is believed that in fluid deposits in the earth we might find some examples. Is this a totally Man-made, therefore, cultural (mind, body, spirit defined)experience?
We can express new flavors of expression and architectures on all levels with this vocabulary. New materialas and technologies that already exist, that are not being used, can become helpful in the creation of life support systems in many areas of human needs, growth and development.
Our paradigms are shifting. Value systems need to keep up with the pace of the cultural infusion of ideas that have been brought about by the global synthesis that continues to take place. Many of the mysteries that we have not solved can be looked at again in the light of evolving methodologies while most are stuck in the status quo of what ever disciplines they are involved in. The contributions of other cultures keep coming to us in forms that we seem not to recognize. They very often do not conform to the rules  set by the keepers of realm of information.  
There are logic structures that encode behaviors of the principles behind the visual information and thoughts about how things really work. Some of these are now being introduced to us not by mathematicians and scientists but by artist and other equally useful disciplines. We seem to be fighting for democracry everywhere else but in mathematics, science and all the other 'cultural' disciplines that can add value to our livies.
The issue here is how do we begin the dialog for the 'inclusion of information' to take place. In the 'first synthesis' we are at the crossroads of a civilization building threshold having to deal with the vision and articulation of a future that is closing in on us quickly. A future of the planet not of individual nations or geniuses.
A future for all that is accessible to all who make the effort to participate creatively and consciously.
Cultivating a true attitude of inclusion to embrace information and ideas that can be instrumental in building our future is the new priority.The information should be reviewed and put through the rigorous reality testing. Once it passes the test it nees to be blessed by the Lords and Ladies of the information realm.
71.255.48.80 17:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF?! 200.248.254.100 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded.  --C S (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've rewritten this article with a lot more detail and (I hope) an encyclopedic structure. It could do with a proof read by someone at some point though - it's my first complete article! Tom-hundered-% 15:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK it's no more a stub, but what do readers think about going into details like WP in other languages cf. e.g. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/46-XX ? (I do not necessarily think that any subtopic merits a page on its own, but just want to know if this is concensus, or if details are absent on the en.WP just because nobody didn't yet put it here.)  Please, anybody who has an opinion on this, don't hesitate to put it down here. — MFH:Talk 15:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're suggesting copying most or all of the top levels of the classification, the way the Italian version of this article does, I think that would skirt a bit too close to being a copyright violation. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destubbification 

message: I find the present "grouping by common area names" rather arbitrary (and anyway not sourced). In particular, I believe that it is not very common to group together Algebra and Discrete Mathematics. The group "Applied mathematics / other" appears to me quite a nonsense, since half of it is made of Mathematical physics.
Best, Paolo Lipparini (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This grouping is also misleading and has recently confused an editor who deduced that number theory would be a part of algebra. Also, such a grouping is WP:OR, or, at least WP:Original synthesis. So, I'll remove it. D.Lazard (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grouping