Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2005/Jan-Mar

message: I am trying to put a few equations in Hull-White model, but, at least on my browser the equations seem to come out in different sizes. Any tips on how to make the page look a little neater? Thanks. Pcb21| Pete 23:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The size problem is because some of the equations are images generated by Wikipedia, which doesn't know the browser's font size.  You could fix the problem by forcing all the displayed equations to be images, but I think that solution would be worse than the problem.  Dbenbenn 23:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not necessarily - at least the page looks consistent. I've done so. Try to also avoid inline <math> (use HTML), since that usually comes out as a PNG inline and doesn't look very nice. Dysprosia 23:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  joy of tex 

message: Greetings from a fellow mathematician. I am happy there are so many of us hanging around on Wikipedia. And I like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics thing. However, it seems to me there is just too much stuff in there, which could be better organized.
For instance, the second half of it could be condensed in a usage and style manual for writing Wikipedia articles on Mathematics, and put on a separate page. It could also be merged with Wikipedia:Styles of Mathematics Articles which seems to have never got off the ground.
The list of participants is getting large. Maybe it could go in a separate article too. 
Also, some of the stuff in the article could be safely moved to the talk page, after incorporating all the insights written there in the usage and style manual above. 
These are just some thoughts. It just looks to me this page lost some focus. What do you think? 
Oleg Alexandrov 05:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we could use some subpages now. Charles Matthews 13:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I wasn't ever aware of it having any focus.  If the question is whether it lacks focus, I will agree.  But it has never been clear to me what this page is for. -- Dominus 14:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dominus that this page never really had focus.  We've just used it as a place to thrash out issues on math pages. -- Walt Pohl 20:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with all of the above.  Oleg: If you want to try to improve the focus and organization of the page in some of the ways (or others) you mention, I think that would be fine with me.  You could just go ahead and give it a go ;-) ( See: Wikipedia:Be bold).  But be prepared for possible objections to any changes you make ;-) Or you could try to discuss changes here first, especially if they are significant.  Paul August  ☎ 20:59, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
To be specific, I want to make some of this stuff into a true usage guide for math articles, that is a Wikipedia: Manual of style for math articles. How's that? Oleg Alexandrov 21:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics]] has this article lost focus?

message: Well, having heard several why`s, one be bold, and no no`s, I forked out an article with the title above. Such an article is obviously necessary, and while what is here at WikiProject Mathematics has good stuff, it looks too much like a talk page.  This new article still needs lots of work. For now I did not do much, as I don't want to wake up tomorrow morning seeing in my watchlist things like "reverted", "redirected", or even "submitted for speedy deletion". :)
If nobody objects (if you do, say it now :), then in several days I will continue polishing the new thing. Of course, if you contribute things to it, or if you simply add it to your watchlist, it will help.
Oleg Alexandrov 02:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Oleg. I have reorganised and updated the project page; now there is much common material, and you may want to cut out from the project page most of the issues covered in your 'manual'. Charles Matthews 10:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics]]

message: There is some debate over the use of a \pi image in Template:Math-stub; there's small edit war going on. Please see Template talk:Math-stub#Pi_image if you care to voice an opinion. (Please do not discuss this here; discuss it there; thanks.) —msh210 04:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  \pi image in [[Template:Math-stub]] 

message: I'd like to point people to the mathematical remark in the article Begging the question. See also my comment on the talk page which has thus far generated no responses. There's gotta be a better example than either of these two. - dcljr 06:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Begging the question 

message: I know I've posted this on most of your user talkpages, but I felt it was important to add to the project page as well.
I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page.  I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia.  Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.
I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone.  I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.
Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page.  Thanks a lot for your support!  ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
:ral315: This is a better way to communicate to the Wikipedian mathematics community, rather than posting on everybody's talk pages — some people consider that to be spamming. Your portal looks interesting. I'll put in on my watchlist and lend a hand as time and interest permits. As for mathematics articles needing attention check out Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics. Paul August  ☎ 06:27, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
::As I said on User talk:Ral315#Wikiportal, personally, I really appreciated the note you left on my talk page. It might have been months before I'd have found the portal without it, as I'm much more active in other areas right now. And over the years, whenever I've taken the trouble to identify the people I thought would be interested in something and give them each a personal heads-up on it, I've only ever had thanks. But within Wikipedia there are many sub-communities, and this one seems not to like it. I've noted that now, and I'm sure you have too. I'm not convinced it's representative of the whole of Wikipedia, or even the Maths community, but certainly take it as applying to the more active members of this Wikiproject. Andrewa 13:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Mathematics Wikiportal 

message: Can someone sort out my TeX rendering at effective population size please? I have most of it, but I'm not sure how to group subscripts/superscripts together e.g. p [sub] 1 + q [/sub] sort of idea. Dunc|☺ 15:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I sorted that one myself.  But I'm still stuck on having a fhat [sub]foo[/sub] because they won't go together, which leaves a gap and {} don't seem to work ?!? Dunc|☺ 15:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed.  dbenbenn | talk 20:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tex rendering -- help! 

message: I've asked this on Wikipedia:Reference_desk#.5B.5Bbinomial_expansion.5D.5D too, but, what is the binomial expansion of (p_1 + ... + p_n)^c?  I don't think this is covered in the articles that are there at the moment.  (I want to derive the fully general Hardy-Weinberg law). Dunc|☺ 19:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[binomial expansion]] of (p_1 + ... + p_n)^c 

message: It seems to be the norm on wikipedia to use \phi for writing one of the angle coordinates in spherical coordinates.  I think that it is usually the norm to use \varphi in mathematics and physics.  I'd be willing to go through and change a bunch of the pages that use  \phi to use \varphi instead.  But I don't want to go against established policy.  It just seems to me that the 'pedia should use the conventions that are common in mathematics.  Has there been discussion about this issue before?
--Jacobolus 06:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the Wikipedia norm is the correct one. Dysprosia 06:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: As do I.  Surely, it's a case of using one letter followed by another: theta (\theta) then phi (\phi).  If varphi (\varphi) were correct, surely we'd use vartheta (\vartheta) for the first angle we designate?  --stochata 13:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that the "var" in "\varphi" just means "variant phi symbol", and doensn't necessarily imply that "\vartheta" should be used for theta.  In all of the math books I just looked at (many of which are layed out in TeX), spherical and cylindrical coordinates were laid out using varphi.  In the two physics books I looked at, the phi symbol was used.  So I'll stick with phi I guess, as it appears (see discussion below this one) that the physicists' notation is winning out for other coordinate systems. --Jacobolus 18:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I use \varphi when I write mathematics in TeX (In fact, I \let\phi\varphi), but I prefer \phi here.  The wiki software is able to display \phi as an actual character, whereas it generates an image for \varphi.  dbenbenn | talk 17:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One pesky problem is that in many html fonts, phi displays inline as the varphi symbol, which means that there is visual inconsistency between rendered formulae and inline variable names. --Jacobolus 18:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Note that in my comment below on the notation used by mathematics tutors for my undergrad -- I link to their book.  They use phi rather than varphi.  (Indeed, Jacobolus, the inline phi appears as varphi on my browser) --stochata 11:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  \phi or \varphi 

message: Just seeking input on a new article: estimation theory.  (Estimation didn't take a purely statistical explanation and I better know it as estimation theory.)  Please leave article specific commentary on it's talk page instead of here.  Thanks. Cburnett 06:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soliciting input on Estimation theory 

message: What are your opinions about the use of upright d versus italic d in integration and for the exterior derivative? Currently, probably because it is less LaTeX, italic d seems predominant. Personally I prefer upright d as this more clearly contrasts with possible use of d as a function or number(distance). Examples
\int f\,d\mu                                                              	\int f\,\mathrm{d}\mu
\frac{dy}{dx}                                                             	\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}x}
\int d(vx, z/x^2) \ln(x+1) \,d (x \mapsto \cos(x)d(x, w))                 	\int d(vx, z/x^2) \ln(x+1) \,\mathrm{d} (x \mapsto \cos(x)d(x, w))
\int fdt\wedge dx\wedge dy\wedge dz = \int f\,dt\,dx\,dy\,dz              	\int f\mathrm{d}t\wedge \mathrm{d}x\wedge \mathrm{d}y\wedge \mathrm{d}z = \int f\,\mathrm{d}t\,\mathrm{d}x\,\mathrm{d}y\,\mathrm{d}z
d\det\left({}^a_c {}^b_d\right) = d(ad-bc) = add + dda - bdc - cdb        	\mathrm{d}\det\left({}^a_c {}^b_d\right) = \mathrm{d}(ad-bc) = a\mathrm{d}d + d\mathrm{d}a - b\mathrm{d}c - c\mathrm{d}b
d\det\left({}^a_c {}^b_d\right) = d(ad-bc) = a\,dd + d\,da - b\,dc - c\,db	\mathrm{d}\det\left({}^a_c {}^b_d\right) = \mathrm{d}(ad-bc) = a\,\mathrm{d}d + d\,\mathrm{d}a - b\,\mathrm{d}c - c\,\mathrm{d}b
\int f(x_1, \ldots, x_d) \,d_dx                                           	\int f(x_1, \ldots, x_d) \,\mathrm{d}_dx
df(V) = V(f) = \left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}f(\gamma_t)                 	
\Delta := (d+d^*)^2 = dd^*+d^*d                                           	\Delta := (\mathrm{d}+\mathrm{d}^*)^2 = \mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^*+\mathrm{d}^*\mathrm{d}
\Delta := (d+d^*)^2 = dd^*+d^*d\,                                         	\Delta := (\mathrm{d}+\mathrm{d}^*)^2 = \mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}^*+\mathrm{d}^*\mathrm{d}\,
Also, when defining something, do you use := instead of = and why?
MarSch 17:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is standard to use italics for differentials such as dx (e.g., see Wolfram: ).  The spacing ought to give you a clue to the nature of the symbol, note that you should add a little space to distinguish the variable (see Lamport p.50). e.g., \int d\, x \, dx. --stochata 23:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of using a vertical "d", but it is not common.  I think that in Wikipedia we are not supposed to be trend-setters but should follow common practice, so we have to use the italic d". --Zero 02:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The Brits have spoken. :) I would say we need to restrict transatlantic differences to spelling (and politics) only. Italic dx has been the style on Wikipedia, and I think it should stay this way.  Oleg Alexandrov 19:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Shades of varphi! I think its a terrible idea to go out and try to retroactively edit hundreds of pages to use a different font in the math typsettings. Authors of new pages get to pick thier symbols, but they should  make at least token attempts to be consistent with nearby articles. For the record, I have no love for :=  I sometimes use \equiv in the privacy of my own room, but I would not subject the public to such degradations.  One man's definition is another man's theorem. linas 16:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

text: My vote goes to "thin space (/,) and upright d", for better semantics and for all the other reasons mentioned here PizzaMargherita 07:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  straight or italic d? 

message: Could someone here confirm that this new one sentence article is correct? An algebraic solution is a solution that is either a number or can be computed.  That strikes me as so general as to be essentially meaningless, but google's been no help & I'm not competent in this area. Thanks. Michael Ward 03:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Algebraic solution]] 

message: I wanted to alert everyone to some edits I've just noticed. Take a look at IP 84.94.98.49's contribution list: . Notice that all of the edits were adding links to abstracts or papers by someone named " J.Foukzon". They were not, as far as I could tell, particularly relevant to the articles (I could be wrong). I'm wondering if someone might be engaging in something which could be called "vanity references". This could be a particularly insidious form of vandalism. One that could be difficult to deal with, since it can be hard to verify that a reference is really relevant. Paul August  ☎ 20:37, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
:Certainly references like both the ones on Path integral formulation (now only visible in the history) are unnecessary and, while broadly 'relevant' to the subject at hand, at best add nothing to the article and at worst distract from more suitable references.  The Foukzon references in that article are in fact conference papers that have not yet been presented (appearing July 2005); sheesh!  Well spotted, Paul.  Ben Cairns 22:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say, delete without further fuss. Oleg Alexandrov 22:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity references?