lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Bridge (graph theory)

message: What is the best way to have both bridge = isthmus and bridge of a subgraph explained?  Should it be in two sections of this one article?  Should it be in separate articles, one called "Bridge (graph theory) (isthmus)" (for instance) and the other called "Bridge (graph theory) (of a subgraph)" (for instance)?  (With these titles the "(graph theory)" could be omitted.)  I'm looking for suggestions and whatever rules may apply.  Zaslav (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isthmus vs. Bridge of subgraph
Talk:Evergreen, San Jose

message: This article can be updated to include the Montgomery Hill Landmark No. 813. You can update the article to include a landmark section that includes the text and citations for "John Joseph Montgomery built the Evergreen monoplane where flight tests occurred. On October 31, 1911,  Montgomery was attempting to land Evergreen at low speed and he encountered turbulence, which caused a stall. He crashed and died from his injuries on a hillside now known as "Montgomery Hill," just behind Evergreen Valley College. You can update the article with the following citations: citation #1, citation #2, and citation #3. This landmark can be found here: California Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , article has been updated. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Landmark
Talk:Sean Kennedy

message: Fuck you, Wikipedia. 82.33.137.16 03:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So Rant Media is notable, but the main guy behind it is not?

message: Screw this guy where the phuck is the sean kennedy "the fucking man" page? (Greavediggerfuneral)
:I'm going to try to clean up the grammar and get the thing written from an NPOV... probably there should be a disambiguation page for the other dude... I'm completely new to Wikipedia so wish me luck... or be nice, depending on which side you're on. Are there sides? Probably, there are sides to everything nowadays. And yes, aol IP... I am indeed a drooling idiot.172.200.9.141 00:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's nowhere near finished, but I made a start. I am now tired. Any kind of feedback on what I shouldn't do would be appreciated. 172.200.9.141 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WTF

message: For those playing at home, the article on Sean Kennedy The Fucking Man was removed, presumably due to lack of notability, although no delete reason was given, the votes for keep were greater than those for delete, and no consensus was reached. Being an elitist, this particular bag of decaying organic matter does not give a fuck, and is simply happy that the creation of a disambiguation page has led to a greater awareness of the metal band I Killed the Prom Queen (though Hollyoaks could probably be done without). Those wishing to find extensive information on Mr. The Fucking Man should use any of the numerous search engines on these here intertubes, except for the ones that just give you porn. Does that cover all the loose ends? I hope so. Jesus Christ, there are guidelines for talk pages? None of them have anything to do with swearing or giving an opinion, right? Oops, this is over 100 words, that's OK, I don't really expect anyone to read it... OldMixcoatl 01:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update
Talk:Brocard's conjecture

message: In https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/45918e23-79ff-4c3c-ae0f-f53385562e68/ScienceOpenPreprint/Brocard%20Conjecture.pdf dated ~ Feb 21 2021, Feliksiak claims "delta" > 2*(Pn+1)/ (log(Pn)+1)).  He also computes an upper bound. Billymac00 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lower Bound
Talk:Brown number

message: Brown numbers might need to be disambiguated. The term is also a humorous scatological reference that refers to statistics generated for biased purposes (such as marketing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.87.203 (talk) 
:Disambiguation pages are for disambiguating between different Wikipedia articles. We don't appear to have an article about your meaning so no disambiguation is needed. PrimeHunter 15:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Cabal (set theory)

message: Yes, I always suspected that set theory originated from an underground movement of some sort. YohanN7 (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A set of set theorists. If two of them married they'd form a union. I guess these sort of relations imply a function. I wonder iff they would have many differences? - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ;)
Talk:Ciphertext-only attack

message: In the comment about the poles cracking the enigma cyphertext-only w/ the device settings … the device settings are the key so I don't see how this even qualifies as an attack. 66.188.120.75 (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Enigma was cracked using what is called "known-plaintext attack" or maybe "chosen-plaintext attack". That is, the cryptanalysts at Bletchley Park assumed that some random message began with some known sentence/part of sentence and then they used that to guess the key. In conclusion, Enigma shouldn't even be mentioned here. 69.165.143.15 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Carew Arthur Meredith

message: What is a 'B star' (the article claims he was "the first mathematical student to take a double first and 'B star' in two years"? )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donn300 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: 'B star' ?
Talk:Categorification

message: I have seen the claim that it was coined my Louis Crane in multiples places. In his paper Categorification, John Baez cites two papers, one by Crane, and one by Crane and Frenkel, as the origins of this the concept and the term. These same two papers are also cited in Crane's and Yetter's paper Examples of Categorification. Eugenia Cheng also attributes the term to Crane in her book The Joy of Abstraction. To me these claims seem very plausible, especially since Crane himself refers to these papers. However, since they are not freely accessible, I am unable to verify them directly myself. I still chose to add these two sources as citations to this claim, but if anyone is able to look at the papers to properly verify them, it would be great. Tommpouce (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the origin of the term "categorification"
Talk:Category of relations

message: Doesn't the word "relation" in this article precisely mean binary relation? If I am right, we need to specify this. Relation in general can have an arbitrary arity. --Acepectif 02:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, no, the relations can be arbitrary spiders. User:Linas (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see the issue; its written as if it were a binary relation. The best of my understanding, an arbitrary relation can be built up out of tensoring with the 'cloning' and 'deleting' relations, and contracting the various 'spider legs' as needed. Basically, I think its just saying that an arbitrary relation and be built up out of binary relations: statements like "if this is that, and that is greater than the other, and the other is greater than B, then Q is less than S, etc."  Some formalities, stating this, in the language of the units and counits of this cat, would be nice. (Hmm .. its vaguely similar to saying that a category that has all pushouts and all equalizers has all diagrams ... but in a simpler, less demanding setting. Curious... must explore more...) User:Linas (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binary relation?

message: Most of this article describes a category where objects are sets and morphisms are relations, but the section "Relations as Objects" describes a category where the objects are (homogeneous) relations and the morphisms are relation-preserving maps.
It seems that these are actually two different categories, which happen to share the name "Rel". If this is the case it should be clearly stated that there are two different categories and the article describes both. (Unless they are isomorphic? But I don't think they are.) Nathaniel Virgo (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the second definition has morphisms similar to an order isomorphism or a Galois connection, but based on a homogeneous relation. It is listed here, so far, as an alternative Rel, but with references it might be moved. The first definition, generalizing category of sets, includes heterogeneous relations as morphisms. — Rgdboer (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations as objects section - isn't this a separate category? 

message: Consider just finite sets and relations. The resulting category is equivalent to the category of finite-dimensional matrices over the boolean semiring. A lot of observations in this article are more intuitive in this case. Assuming the axiom of choice, the category Rel is equivalent to the category of matrices where the number of rows and columns are arbitrary cardinal numbers. Svennik (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalence to the category of matrices over the booleans
Talk:Category of small categories

message: Russell's paradox (a collection of a certain kind, of all such collections that do not contain themselves as members) seems to require a "NOT" or "exclusion" or "subtraction" operation, as in complex propositions of the form "(1st simpler proposition) but NOT (2nd simpler proposition)", or set-subtraction, conventionally written A \ B.
This is why there cannot be a set of all sets.
But categories do not, AFAIK, require that such an exclusion constructor exist.  As such, categories should therefore be immune to Russell's paradox, shouldn't they?  That is, the category of ALL categories (not just small ones) and functors between them would be a member of itself, without engendering any contradictions.
(Sociological disproof: If they were immune, then people would not have invented 2-Cats.  So they must not be immune! ;-)
Can anyone clarify? Jmacwiki (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Russell's paradox
Talk:Cauchy–Kovalevskaya theorem

message: The statement of the theorem says that  A_i  is in  End(V).  That notation should be explained. LachlanA (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain  End(V) 

message: I'm not familiar with this topic, how does the Cauchy-Kowalevski relate to the Cauchy–Lipschitz? Don't they both address the existance of unique solution for the Cauchy problem? --Marco4math (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation with Cauchy problem 

message: either I am completely confused or f goes in the wrong direction:f: W \to V should be there instead of f: V \to W
--Diogenes2000 (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong direction? 

message: The link to the reference Kowalevski, Sophie seems to be wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.108.69.177 (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link not correct? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk)  03:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Cauchy–Kowalevski theorem →  – Appears to be more common according to Google and Google Scholar, and is in line with the article on Sofya Kovalevskaya. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 17 September 2023
Talk:Charles Jean de la Vallée Poussin

message: What about his test for the uniform convergence of integrals over infinite ranges? THe details may be found in Whittaker & Watson. 81.102.15.200 (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test for uniform convergence of integrals over infinite ranges? 

message: "and he spent most of his life there" (in Leuven, Belgium), is directly contradicted by the rest of his biography. De la Vallée-Poussin spent many years of his life residing in the United States, in Boston, Massachusetts, and in Paris, France. De la Vallée-Poussin also traveled and lectured extensively in cities over the United States, Canada, and other countries. During his lifetime, that took a lot of time.
"and he spent most of his life there," is an obvious piece of plagarism from some source that was not even correct itself.
That statement is rather like claiming that Thomas Edison spent most of his life residing in his hometown in Ohio, when he actually spent much of his life living in New York City, New Jersey, and Ft. Myers, Florida.98.67.108.12 (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Residence
Talk:Christian Zeller

message: The page has, near the top, "The following year, on 16 March 1883, he delivered a short account of his congruence relation (Zeller's congruence), which was published in the society's journal."
(1) The content of the "congruence relation" page is not significantly related to Zeller's work; the link is not appropriate.
(2) It seems a little strange to introduce by mentioning his second such paper, only.
(3) His Easter work, included in the papers, is of equal importance.
How about The following year, on March 16, he delivered a short account of his methods for calculating day-of-week (Zeller's congruence) and the date of Easter, which was published in the society's journal.? 82.163.24.100 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: The merlyn page cited in the Article is hardly comprehensive, biographically; though it describes his well-known work.  The Martinszeller Verband (Zeller family association) has much more detail, some of which is at http://www.martinszeller-verband.de/genealogie/getperson.php?personID=I3331&tree=zeller (Root : http://www.martinszeller-verband.de/genealogie/). 82.163.24.100 (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography
Talk:Code (set theory)

message: There is probably nothing wrong in the article as it stands, but I want to change the beginning of it anyway. The reason is that I don't like when (for most people) nontrivial concepts are introduced in a single sentence and, in addition, the notation is introduced in nested "where-clauses" and "such-that-clauses"
 
I'll replace
::In set theory, a code for a set 
:::x \in H_{\aleph_1}, 
::the notation standing for the hereditarily countable sets,
::is a set 
:::E \subset ω×ω 
::such that there is an isomorphism between (ω,E) and (X,\in) where X is the transitive closure of {x}.
with this
::In set theory a code of a set is defined as follows. Let x be a hereditarily countable set, and let X be the transitive closure of \{x\}. Let as usual \omega denote the set of natural numbers and let \aleph_1 be the first uncountable cardinal number.  In this notation we have x \in H_{\aleph_1}. Also recall that (X,\in) denotes the relation of belonging in X.
::A code for x is any set E satisfying the following two properties:
::: 1.) E \subset ω×ω
::: 2.) There is an isomorphism between (\omega,E) and (X,\in).
if there are no objections.
YohanN7 (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A definition easier to follow
Talk:Complete coloring

message: Read in section Algrithms
For any fixed k, it is possible to determine whether the achromatic number of a given graph is at least k, in linear time.
Read in article "The First-fit Chromatic and Achromatic Numbers"
Stephanie Fuller, December 17, 2009,  page 9:
Finding the achromatic number of a graph is NP-hard; determining whether
it is greater than some number is NP-complete. This was proven in [24] using
minimum edge dominating sets. In this paper, they also prove that even when
limited to the complements of bipartite graphs, it is an NP-hard problem [24]
So, it is NP-complete or "linear time"? 
Jumpow (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is linear time for fixed k. It is NP-complete when k is a variable that is part of the input. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't understand....Loop though all k=0:N and find max k when for GIVEN GRAPH "achromatic number is at least k". Got O(N*N). Jumpow (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's suppose, for the sake of specificity, that the running time, measured as a function of both k and n, is O(3^k n) (the actual dependence on k from the cited source appears to be much worse). Then for any particular value of k, such as k=4, the 3^k part of this bound is just a constant (81 for k=4) and can be removed from the O-notation. But if you are testing all values of k from 1 to n as in your "loop through all" statement, then the time is O(\sum_{i=1}^n 3^i n)=O(3^nn), much bigger than O(n^2). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood what is wrong a couple of hours ago... I did not count, that constant will depend from k, and dependency will not linear. But, I think, article need some crarifying. Thank you for patience and explanation. Jumpow (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: What is wrong?
Talk:Complete theory

message: Hello, I believe the definition of complete theory given in this page is not the best one. If I'm not mistaken, the correct definition should be the one given in this page, i.e. a complete theory need not be maximal. If you give the more restrictive definition in this page, it is no longer true that a theory is complete if and only if any two of its models are elementary equivalent. 134.58.253.57 (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

message: "For theories in logics which contain classical propositional logic, this is equivalent to asking that for every sentence φ in the language of the theory it contains either φ itself or its negation ¬φ." from the article seems wrong, that will capture the completeness but not consistency. There may be theories satisfying this but which are not consistent, for example the theory might contain \phi and \psi but not \phi\vee\psi. --Catrincm (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If \phi and \psi are formulas then \phi\vee\psi must be a formula in the language. Wqwt (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterisation of Completeness doesn't get Consistency

message: I know that this type of completeness is sometimes called 'negation-complete' to distinguish it from the other type of completeness, as in Godel's theorems (and the article does spell this distinction out).  The term 'negation complete' is used over at the article Completeness (logic) and I've linked that back here; what I _cannot_ find is an adequate reference that witnesses this usage. 71.139.124.132 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "negation complete"
Talk:Conditional proof

message: I added the short description: "formal proof." If anyone can improve on this, that would be much appreciated (if seen fit). As it stands, it appears fine for now.
SpiralSource (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Short description

message: I feel the example given is too similar to syllogism and thus slightly confusing. A better example is as follows, from http://marauder.millersville.edu/~bikenaga/mathproof/condproof/condproof.pdf:
As an example of a conditional proof in symbolic logic, suppose we want to prove (A → B)→ ~C (If [If A, then B], then not C)from the first two premises below:
1.	A∧ ~ D    ("A and not D")
2.	B → (C → D)    ("If B, then [If C, then D]")
  	
3.	A → B   (conditional proof assumption, "Suppose "If A, then B" is true")
4.	A   (Law of Simplification, based on line 1)
5.	B   (Modus Ponens, based on lines 1 and 3)
6.	C → D   (Modus Ponens, based on lines 2 and 5)
7.	~D    (Law of Simplification, based on line 1)
8.	~C    (Modus Tollens, based on lines 6 and 7)
9.	(A → B)→ ~C   (Conditional Proof, based on lines 3 and 8)
The conclusion ∼ C was deduced on line 8. Together with the assumption A → B in line 3, this proves the conditional (A → B) → C.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.214.96 (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Copeland–Erdős constant

message: Can anyone prove the constant created by concatenating prime p that p+2 is also a prime
:0.35111729...
is irrational?
Assume that there are infinitely many twin primes.
Thank you for your help. Motomuku (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this follows from current knowledge about twin primes even if we assume there are infinitely many. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics may be a better place to ask. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

text: It is not even known if it is a number with infinite digits (so it can theoretically be a rational). --Infovarius (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Twin prime version

message: Is there any information about transcedentality of the constant? --Infovarius (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcendental 

message: Copeland and Erdős apparently considered 1 a prime number, and they defined the constant as 0.12357111317... Of course, this doesn't change any of the number's important properties. Cocaineninja (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 a prime? 

message: Copeland and Erdős's proof that the constant is normal uses only the fact that p_n is strictly increasing and \pi(n) = n^{1-o(1)}, so it works for any sequence with similar properties. Cocaineninja (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generalisation
Talk:Countably generated space

message: The current version of the article says that
:All borel sets are countably generated.
I don't have a clue what this sentence should mean -- it is definitely not true in any topological space. --Kompik 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i thought Borel sets are countably generated. if "countably genrated" has several meanings, we should put them in the article. Anyway, we need some examples for "countably generated" stuff. Jackzhp 00:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borel sets? 

message: A topological space is countably generated <=> it has countable tightness. Therefore the term countably tight space is used often as well. I am not quite sure, which term is used more frequently. The goole search "countably tight" "topological space" has less hits that
"countably generated" "topological space", but the term countably generated is used for many other constructions that topological spaces, which is, indeed, the case for many of the results of this search. (As far as I remember, I have seen several papers using this term for topological spaces, if it would be necassary, I could try to find precise citations.)
(The definition of tightness can be found in most standard topological textbooks, or e.g. here, the section Cardinal functions. I wasn't able to find tightness in wikipedia. The only thing about cardinal functions in topology I found here: Topological_property#Cardinal_functions. The Polish wiki has an entire article pl:Funkcja_kardynalna devoted to cardinal functions (including the ones used in topology), perhaps it would not be bad idea to make something similar in English wiki. (I didn't find anything similar here.) --Kompik 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tightness 