Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2007/Aug

message: This is my first foray into this WikiProject, and I'd like to have a rant. I know a lot of work has been done on maths articles on Wikipedia, and I really appreciate the effort. However, I don't recall the last time I came away from a maths article less confused than I started. This is English Wikipedia, and at the risk of sounding like an arrogant Western tourist in the Japanese country side, can you (authors of maths articles) please write in ENGLISH? I'm not asking for a whole article without mathematical notation, nor for formal, rigorous mathematical definitions to be translated perfectly into English (although that would be nice too)...
What I am saying, is that me, as a layman, like the many others who read Wikipedia, would find the maths articles a lot easier to digest if you (the authors) would at least include an opening short paragraph without any mathematical symbols whatsoever. None at all. The empty set. For a whole paragraph. I can't stress this enough. Wikipedia is not Wolfram's world of maths and Wikipedia's readers are not all mathematicians. Please write introductions (at least) for a general audience. The only assumption you should be making is that your reader knows English. 
Hawking refrained from using more than a single equation in a brief history of time*; surely you can refrain for a single paragraph. To labour the point, here's a quote from the WP:Manual of Style (mathematics) which also encourages informal introductions: (* e=mc²)
----
It is a good idea to also have an informal introduction to the topic, without rigor, suitable for a high school student or a first-year undergraduate, as appropriate. For example,
In the case of real numbers, a continuous function corresponds to a graph that you can draw without lifting your pen from the paper; that is, without any gaps or jumps.
The informal introduction should clearly state that it is informal, and that it is only stated to introduce the formal and correct approach. If a physical or geometric analogy or diagram will help, use one: many of the readers may be non-mathematical scientists.
----
Imagine trying to read any of these opening paragraphs with no knowledge of any mathematical notation system. They are mostly simple concepts.
Opening paragraph examples:
*Domain (mathematics)
::In mathematics, a domain of a k-place relation L ⊆ X1 × … × Xk is one of the sets Xj, 1 ≤ j ≤ k.
::In the special case where k = 2 and L ⊆ X1 × X2 is a function L : X1 → X2, it is conventional to refer to X1 as the domain of the function and to refer to X2 as the codomain of the function.
*Image (mathematics) (here the opening paragraph is in English, but it makes no attempt to define the term. ugh.)
::In mathematics, image is a part of the set theoretic notion of function. 
::Let X and Y be sets, f be the function f : X → Y, and x be some member of X. Then the image of x under f, denoted f(x), is the unique member y of Y that f associates with x. The image of a function f is denoted im(f) and is the range of f, or more precisely, the image  of its domain.
*indicator function (not terrible, but still no need for symbols in the first sentence).;
::In mathematics, an indicator function or a characteristic function is a function defined on a set X that indicates membership of an element in a subset A of X.
*Lambda system (this introduction leaves me wanting to yell "DO YOU SPEAK ... ENGLISH ???")
::In mathematics, a λ-system on a set Ω is a class L, consisting of certain subsets of Ω, such that: the set Ω itself is in L; 
*Hermitian adjoint (A counter example, perhaps. I have no idea if it's possible to make this readable, even with its lack of symbols. But I'm giving the example here as food for thought..)
::In mathematics, specifically in functional analysis, each linear operator on a Hilbert space has a corresponding adjoint operator. Adjoints of operators generalize conjugate transposes of square matrices to (possibly) infinite-dimensional situations. If one thinks of operators on a Hilbert space as "generalized complex numbers", then the adjoint of an operator plays the role of the complex conjugate of a complex number.
::The adjoint of an operator A is also sometimes called the Hermitian adjoint of A and is denoted by A* or A† (the latter especially when used in conjunction with the bra-ket notation).
...
Please opening maths articles with an informal introduction. I'd go on to ask for equations to also be given captions or explanations, much like other illustrations, but that might be stretching it. 
Thanks to all contributors, and especially those who have been endeavouring already to make Wikipedia readable by all. Thanks for reading this far. end rant
—Pengo 08:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that these are not good. (However, there is not a single of your examples that are not written in English; the trouble is not the language but the content, i.e. the lack of an informal introduction that provides context - for example, what does this concept generalize, or what is it used for). You hereby have permission to start fixing them.  –Henning Makholm 09:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, unlike most of the rants about readability we get around here, Pengo has made excellent points and has proven them by producing some truly awful examples that desperately need fixing.  (Especially Domain (mathematics).  Ouch!)  To play devil's advocate for one moment, though, I will point out that some articles are just going to be technical by their very nature.  The article Hermitian adjoint mentioned above is such a beast.  For a more dramatic example, consider something like Stack (category theory).  I believe it has a well-written introduction that can't be made much easier given that it builds on very sophisticated machinery from algebraic geometry.  But the diligent reader can follow the links back to Algebraic variety, Scheme (mathematics), and so on, to get an idea of the foundational base for such a technical article.  So we should not judge our leads on readability by the "average" Wikipedia reader, but on the availability of context in the lead.  VectorPosse 10:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductions in English please. 

message: The article titled expectation seems to be about a weird mixture of psychology, economics, and the supernatural.
: 
The article titled expected value is about the mathematical concept.
: 
Lots of mathematics articles link to expectation when expected value is clearly intended.  Changing expectation to expectation would fix those links.  Go to expectation and click on "what links here" and find cases that look as if they should link to expected value and go from there. Michael Hardy 19:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan.  I've been doing the same with the bizarre and probably not salvageable article Infinity, replacing with links to Infinite set.  Unfortunately this doesn't work in all cases, but I'd rather delink (or better, link to Extended reals or the like) than keep a mathematical article's link to the psychological/historical/supernatural/revisionist OR-mismash that is Infinity. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about expectation, which is now a little better as I've removed some of the more spurious see also links. Less convinced about Infinity/Infinite set. Infinite set fails the layman test mentioned above, its also less encyclopaedic than Infinity as the reader may be interested in other aspects of the term, such as its treatment in computing. Infinity probably also explains a little better its most common usage as bounds in integrals, summations. Extended reals is not the right link in these context as the infinity symbol is more a notational convenience than an actual element of a set being considered. --Salix alba (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the course of helping to clean up the erroneous links to expectation, I ran across this article. For a moment I was tempted to start a new article about indiscreet mathematicians – the list to be headed by Evariste Galois, of course. But then I came to my senses.  ;^>  DavidCBryant 00:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Make sure that you put Gian-Carlo Rota into the indiscrete crowd ^-^ Arcfrk 20:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just in case, just in case: Let us not forget that discreet, with two consecutive "e"s, and discrete, with a final "e", are two different words that mean two different things.  Evariste Galois might indeed be called "indiscreet", considering the way he died.  Gian-Carlo Rota could be considered "indiscrete" considering the title of one of his books. Michael Hardy 21:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help clean up these weird links to "expectation" 

message: I didn't find anything on WP about homogeneous linear equations:  \mathbf{A} \mathbf{x} = \mathbf{0}  where  \mathbf{x}  is a vector and  \mathbf{A}  is a matrix or linear transformation.  I want to write a definition and say something about the characters of the solution with links to SVD and to null space, etc.  Q: should this be an article of its own or put somewhere, for example, in the linear equation article since it can be seen as a special case of a linear equation? --KYN 17:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly this should go into the system of linear equations article.  It already has some information on this topic.  Jim 17:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homogeneous linear equation 

message: The current FAC for Orion (mythology) recommends a copy-edit. I really cannot do this myself; I'm too close to the article to see it clearly. Also, the FAC has brought out some very useful additions to the article, and I may be too respectful of my helpful colleague's prose. 
Why here, though? Because a large number of intelligent and literate editors hang out here, and while I've asked the appropriate project, it is largely deserted. More importantly, this article has the same problem as many mathematics articles: those who would naturally edit it know the subject, and it's hard to tell what it looks like to readers who don't. What the article needs is a detailed read-though, to check that it is clear and grammatical everywhere.  Please help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyeditor needed 

message: Please express opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture. Michael Hardy 05:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please express opinions on this proposed deletion 

message: It is not proper to speedily delete when the discussion is just getting underway and people disagree on whether to keep an article.
: 
The AfD system is badly broken.  In this case, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Probability were never told the article exists, let alone that it was nominated for deletion.  It was spun off from another article, and never tagged with Category:Probability that would have caused the appropriate bots to pick it up.
: 
Most people on Wikipedia are good people.
Most people who opine on AfD are good people.
Most people who spend all their time on AfD are bad people, full of hatred.  I've said this before over the past couple of years.  Something in the system encourages this.
: 
Tomorrow I'll open a deletion review and suitably notify this project and that other one. Michael Hardy 06:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people who spend all their time on AfD are bad people, full of hatred  What the hell?  That is the worst accusation of bad faith that I think I have ever read on Wikipedia.  Note that I am not one of those "bad people, full of hatred", as can be verified by examining my contributions (I haven't edited an AfD in a long while).  I am nonetheless disturbed by your comments.  Please go read Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and reconsider your rhetoric.  --Iamunknown 07:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When I saw your post at AN/I, and examined the posts at the relevant WikiProjects, I noticed your post here.  I now see that you posted comments similar to the above at AN/I.  I have posted in more detail there.  I would like to remove any argument related to non-mathematics topics which might crop up from the Mathematics WikiProject, so as to not disturb this talk page, and so I have stricken my comments.  --Iamunknown 07:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, let's keep the discussion here, where it belongs 

message: Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture was deleted in an irregular way when this WikiProject had not been notified of the proposal for deletion.  Please express opinions here:
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_6#Infinite_monkey_theorem_in_popular_culture. Michael Hardy 22:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: man, these bureaucrats are something else, eh, Mr. Hardy? :-) Mct mht 01:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please opine here 

message: This is a pointer to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Logic#Merger_of_Axiomatic_system_and_Formal_system. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that's a pointer to a pointer. Probably better to comment directly at talk:formal system. --Trovatore 22:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed merger of [[axiomatic system]] and [[formal system]] 

message: By my quick count, 17 "keep", 25 "delete" so far, plus various gradations such as "trim" or "merge" or "trim and merge", etc.  And several people have changed their minds based on the spate of recent edits to the article.  Anyone with an opinion should speak up now before this closes. Michael Hardy 22:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: WAREL's primary IP is vandalising Copeland–Erdős constant, up to about 9RR.  Until he's blocked, could we have a few more eyes there?  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that 14RR.  Aren't there any uninvolved admins?  I may have hit 5 (if you count partial reverts of nRR, where n>8), but then WAREL is up to 14 in the past 4 hours.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP was blocked (not be me) about a quarter of an hour ago. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While this was going on, I spotted two instances of WAREL's nonsense, and got an edit conflict when I went to revert it – someone else was quicker than I was both times. So it seems that there may have been plenty of eyes on the article.  DavidCBryant 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Why did one wait until 9 reverts? The recent history of the article is a sorry thing to look at. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I started sending it to 3RR at 5 reverts (4 clear), but he kept reverting.  As an actively participating admin, I didn't think I could block.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAREL 

message: I introduced a version of the article proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π on Citizendium.  Someone wrote on the talk page: "there is a certain position that proponents of this statement ('There is proof that', 'I have proof'.. etc) always take and I don't think we should cater."  Obviously that is imbecilic nonsense.  Has anyone here ever seen this particular flavor of nonsense before?  Does anyone have any idea what he's referring to?  He was not willing to be specific. Michael Hardy 06:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the talk page on Citizendium, and I looked at the author's user page. I think he's a student of psychology, and he's just trying to mess with you. You should drop the subject, in my opinion. All he wants is to get you excited. In other words, his "criticism" is meaningless. Oh – he probably doesn't understand calculus.  DavidCBryant 10:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is at . Maybe he refers to people who claim to "prove" things in non-mathematical areas where the alleged proofs are often loose arguments, e.g. "Proof that God exists" (Google hits). Such terminology would violate our NPOV but mathematics is different, and apparently outside his area of expertise. PrimeHunter 13:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "proof" 

message: I found it interesting that several people in the discussion on CZ linked above were concerned about original research. Could someone more familiar with CZ provide a link to CZ's original research policy? The main benefit of verified credentials, I thought, was to allow experts to rely on their credentials in ways that would be considered original research here on WP. Perhaps I was mistaken. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research on CZ 

message: There is a discussion at Talk:Partially ordered set about the merits of using logical quantifiers (\forall, etc.), versus plain words, and on whether the \scriptstyle\preceq notation is preferrable to ≤ for the partial order.
Things are not made simpler by an editor who has not made any edits to the talk page but keeps on reverting in the article with odd edit summaries and no explanation. Anyway, comments welcome. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a direct answer to your question, but I think if someone says "Every even number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes", the plain words are an instance of a universal quantifier.  The terse quantifier symbols like \scriptstyle\forall\, are not the only things that should be called "logical quantifiers". Michael Hardy 20:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment at [[Partially ordered set]] 

message: We have a new AfD for Code2000, again by , who claims that the DRV "failed to actually demonstrate that the subject was in fact notable." Could some admin speedily close this nonsense AfD and explain to the nominator that the DRV (barely a month ago) resulted in an overwhelming consensus that Code2000 is notable? And keep an eye on this loose cannon. --KSmrqT 10:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Outcome was speedy keep, closed by Carl. (Thanks.) --KSmrqT 23:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code2000 AfD (yes, again) 

message: Sometimes the articles in the list of mathematics articles are not quite mathematical. This is partially because since when Wikipedia was starting it was considered good to add to those lists even articles that are more physics and computer science. Another source of not quite math articles is the bot updating the lists nowadays, since sometimes non-math articles are categorized in math categories (although I keep a close eye on those).
Yesterday I removed over 200 articles which are not quite math from the lists. The list of removed articles is available for review at  Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity (see the "Removed articles" section there for August 18 -- thanks to Jitse's bot for maintaining that very useful page), in case anybody wants to take a look (I can put back any of them at any time). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Helix jumped out at me as an article that should be considered as being not "not quite math".  -- Dominus 00:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bot removed a bunch of helix articles, like 3 10 helix. It removed Helix too. But now that I think about it, perhaps helix itself can be added back as math, it has a formula after all. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-math articles in the [[list of mathematics articles]] 

message: Reliable sources use two different definitions, discussed at Talk:Mersenne prime#New Mersenne number definition. I have reverted many (unrelated) good faith edits by User:PhiEaglesfan712 on prime number articles and would like input before doing it again.  PrimeHunter 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the old definition and made a number of other changes, please, post your comments at the talk page of the article. Arcfrk 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mersenne number definition 

message: As a reminder (or news, it depends for whom), our math wikiproject has been involved for two and a half years in copying articles from PlanetMath to Wikipedia (PlanetMath uses GFDL, so copying material as allowed, provided a note specifying the source of the material is added). This subproject is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/PlanetMath Exchange.
We have a tool that greatly helps in copying/merging new material (it generates wikicode and suggests categories). In the last year and a half or so, PlanetMath has gone from 4802 articles to 6940 articles, so the harvest is plentiful. :)
The articles to be copied/reviewed, are arranged by subject matter, which also helps in copying. 
You can see more details (and join the project) at WP:PMEX. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update on the PlanetMath Exchange project 

message: In its present incarnation, square root of 5 contains such items as these identities of Ramanujan (which I put there):
:  {1 \over {1 + {e^{-2\pi\sqrt{5}} \over {1 + {e^{-4\pi\sqrt{5}} \over {1 + \cdots\qquad\qquad}}}}}}
= \left( {\sqrt{5} \over 1 + \left[5^{3/4}(\varphi - 1)^{5/2} - 1\right]^{1/5}} - \varphi \right)e^{2\pi/\sqrt{5}}, 
: 4\int_0^\infty\frac{xe^{-x\sqrt{5}}}{\cosh x}\,dx
 ={1 \over 1 + {1^2 \over {1 + {1^2 \over {1 + {2^2 \over 1 + {2^2 \over {1 + {3^2 \over {1 + {3^2 \over{1 + \cdots \quad}}}}}}}}}}}}, 
...and also the fact that √5 is the "best possible" constant in Hurwitz's theorem of Diophantine approximations.  (In other words, it doesn't rely on any policy of having an article about every irrational number; there are some assertions of notability.) Michael Hardy 01:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: Hello, both pages Fuchsian model and Kleinian model contain a considerable amount of inexact information.  Is anyone interested in discussing this? Katzmik 08:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From a review of the two pages' history, it's clear that Linas started both articles. So it might make sense to ask him directly, at his talk page. He's a nice guy – I'm sure he'd be glad to hear from you. On the other hand, you clearly know a lot about this sort of stuff, and I don't think Linas was overly impressed by his own efforts on these particular articles – look at the edit summary on this edit to see what I mean.  ;^>  I'm pretty sure you've got the green light to improve either article, or both, in other words.  DavidCBryant 11:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both pages can be deleted, I think.  Whatever is correct in them, can be found in other pages, and whatever is not, will be automatically taken care of. Katzmik 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the relevant content should be merged into other pages, you don't need to delete the articles. Just merge the content and make the two pages into redirects to the new location(s). There is a fine line between making stubs versus making redirects to existing articles, which I have often found to be a difficult decision. The benefit of stubs, no matter how short, is that they encourage other editors (like you) to improve them, but there is no so much temptation to replace a redirect with an article.  In other words, bad stubs are part of the "wiki process" for content writing. Of course factually incorrect or misleading stubs should always be fixed immediately when discovered. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. After looking briefly at the two articles, I don't think they should be merged, just improved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly they should not be merged into anything until the errors are corrected. Katzmik 14:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the merging process could include correcting/leaving out the errors. The key point is that simply deleting the pages is not a good idea if they are topics that could be expected to have an article or even be searched for. At the very least, replace them with redirects to articles where the material is covered, alternatively, replace any errors with something better. JPD (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuchsian model and Kleinian model 

message: Can someone who knows about math history add to the "reason" sections of this table: fathers of mathematics?  Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 18:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I did the opposite: subtracted two claims of priority for Indians over arithmetic (!) and calculus, sourced only by web sites. Many other entries in that table are as badly sourced. Anybody can be called the father of something on a web site; to make a real claim for a title on that list, I think you need multiple textbooks or other scholarly works. —David Eppstein 19:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have removed the whole math section from that article, and I will leave my reasoning on that talk page. Further discussion belongs there, instead of here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This page would benefit from the attention of a few more people - it's very hard to determine consensus with only a few editors working on the page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's getting more attention than timeline of mathematics (see below)... Carcharoth 09:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fathers and mothers of branches of mathematics 

message: *What is relevant here is a need for better sourcing for things like timeline of mathematics. At the deletion review for the "founder/father/mother" article, I suggested that this sort of thing is better dealt with in timelines. Could the members of this project help source the entries at the timeline? A note at the bottom says "This article is based on a timeline developed by Niel Brandt (1994) who has given permission for its use in Wikipedia." - but the timeline has been edited since then, so it is unclear which bits are from Brandt's timeline, and which have been added later. I am sure Brandt wouldn't want his work damaged by others trying to extend it (which is something I don't think people explain enough when asking for permission to use text written by others). Also, the talk page has a comment asking for a compact timeline. I agree that a separate, shorter version, or splitting into eras, is needed. Does anyone here want to work on that? Carcharoth 12:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline of mathematics

message: I just came across an old article that might be of interest in the context of Wikipedia:
: Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies Find: They're blind to own failings, others' skills
This may help explain the phenomenon of editors who don't know what they don't know, who boldly blunder where angels fear to tread. Of course, the article offers little help for us in knowing what to do about it. Anyway, enjoy. --KSmrqT 09:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems as if you consider yourself competent. Right? Bo Jacoby 09:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a matter of fact, KSmrq could easily put together an actual consensus of editors who agree he is competent.  VectorPosse 10:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI: Competence self-assessment 

message: I was talking with an editor about how to promote the concept that an article should include at least one citation, when an idea popped into my head (perhaps others have thought of it as well):
* Emulate the method adopted for image uploading, where the software demands a license choice.
That is, when an article is created, include a  template to be filled out. (This template is the best choice, because it works uniformly for books and journal articles and every other source.) Unlike with image licenses, we cannot force a multiple choice among acceptable alternatives, so we may get junk citations. Nor does it directly improve the large number of existing articles. Still, it might have more impact than all those tags that editors ignore.
Before I propose the idea where someone might implement it, I thought I should ask for feedback. Especially, could this turn into a disaster? Are we handing a loaded weapon to a child? --KSmrqT 23:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we could do it watch the "new articles" on the daily activity list for the math project, and add references to the ones that don't have them. In general the "wiki process" for writing an article has been assumed to often begin with an unsourced stub that grows into a mature article; requiring too much too soon breaks that assumption. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that putting a emtpy template may look intimidating to somebody who never used one. However this tool could stimulate including references. Last time I announced this, I didn't get that much response, though. Can you, Carl, provide the list of reference templates in Math articles, please? (You mentioned that everybody could do it, but I'm myself totally illiterate about the inner technical mechanisms :-( ). Thanks. Actually, if it is possible, could you also retrieve the categories the references belong to, e.g if you parse algebraic geometry and find the references on Hartshorne's book etc., retrieve that this book belongs to the categories Category:accuracy dispute (which would be irrelevant here) and Category:Algebraic geometry. This would later help to suggest references to editors when writing articles. (Compare to Amazon, where you are always helped/bothered by getting some related books to existing ones).  Another possibility is the information used in the rating process (in this case, the field "Geometry"). The latter and sometimes also the former are pretty coarse, though. We could refine this by assigning to articles more precise (and unique) content-id's (possibly multiple ones) like the classification numbers (e.g. 11B65) the AMS is using. PlanetMath does this, for example. I figure, if someone could write a little template, we can get this done pretty easily. Jakob.scholbach 01:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I can do whatever. Please leave a detailed request of exactly what you want on my talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  As Ksmrq pointed out above, the danger in pressing people to provide references is that they may supply irrelevant, or in any case, suboptimal, citations. This would clearly be worse than having none at all! "Amazon model", based on automated suggestions, would exacerbate this problem. Arcfrk 03:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. I certainly don't want to press anybody to provide references. I hope that nobody would add random references he/she does not have read or at least looked at before. But in any case, having the information is better than not having it. (Likewise I don't buy every [actually almost no] book Amazon proposes me). This is also somewhat parallel to KSmrq's "Still, it might have more impact than all those tags that editors ignore.": why do people ignore the tags? (I did so, too): when writing about something off your head or something you know pretty well, adding a ref would take you only a second, namely thinking of your favourite references on this/that topic. Instead of this second, it takes at least a minute, first to get a somewhat complete information somehow, then to turn it into a reasonable format etc. Decreasing this tedious and I believe, partly pretty stupid work will help achieving better referencing, that is in terms of quality and quantity. So, I'm just striving for a reference collection as formatted as possible. Jakob.scholbach 06:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely! For me, typing in and formatting a reference takes considerably more than one minute and can be quite distracting. So anything that simplifies this tedious task (and provides more uniform structure at the same time!) is greatly appreciated. Arcfrk 23:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration or lunacy: help decide 

message: I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. Tony 15:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  allowing unconverted metric units in scientific articles 

message: In order to assess more succinctly if there is a consensus in this matter, please comment below with "split" "merge" or "no opinion" and, if you'd like, a sentence explaining your position (what policy, guideline, or personal opinion might be motivating your "vote"). Please keep discussion above, where it belongs. Thanks. --Cheeser1 07:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Straw poll" 

message: Why are we having a poll here? There aren't nearly enough people involved to expect to get a resolution from it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to conclude more concretely the fact that there is no consensus on this matter. I suppose a poll isn't necessary, but someone suggested it, and I would feel remiss if I did not heed such a suggestion and instead acted in a way that might be interpreted as unilateral. I'm certainly of the opinion that the lack of the consensus is fairly evident, but I would not want to presume that it is until is more explicitly so. After a day or two more, I believe consensus or lack thereof will be determined clearly enough. --Cheeser1 17:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would not, of course, be sufficient for you to make your preferred change; at best your wikilawyering would get you back to the status quo ante (with all line items being "small set"). There's no consensus for your change either. --Trovatore 01:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Unfortunately, I have WP:V on my side. "Large set" is the appropriate term, and if lack of consensus (which we obviously have) leads us to revert to the "status quo" we will have a disambiguation page for both terms together. WP:V leads us to change "Small set (Ramsey theory)" to "Large set (Ramsey theory)" to avoid original research. Stop mincing words. Why are you so obsessed with splitting these pages? There is no policy or consensus in favor, just your personal preference, albeit shared with some people. Without consensus, things should stay the way they are. The fact that you want to revert my unrelated contribution which has to do with WP:OR violations is irrelevant. Stop making a fuss. I know you want to "fix" the "ugly" "problems" so that Wikipedia is exactly the way you want, but you don't own Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 01:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really isn't appropriate to make any further changes to the pages' names until we find some consensus to go forward.  Pushing towards "no consensus" isn't a productive strategy.  Many editors here have long experience with WP and are not particularly vulnerable to wikilawyering.  I recommend that you work towards finding some compromise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all - are we changing pages' names? I don't recall that being proposed by anyone (maybe I misunderstood or missed something). Regardless, when somebody swoops in and makes a huge unilateral change to an article, I expect a reason besides "I like it better this way." And I'm not pushing for no consensus - there's already no consensus, this should be evident. The fact that I'm trying to move on from there is apparently counting against me. Either the article is split, or it isn't. There was no (objective) reason to split it, and no consensus to do so. So we should un-split it. I'm perfectly happy compromising by cutting the exposition and so forth - nowhere did I expect that to go back in, and I'm just as opposed to it as anyone else. What more compromise could I give, but to concede entirely to Trovatore just because he insists that his version is "better" because it "fixes" "ugly" "problems" in the article. This is the most compromising version one could use, without conceding entirely to Trovatore (hardly a compromise) or violating WP:OR by abusing/inventing terminology. --Cheeser1 02:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a chance, not gonna fly. The only thing you can get with the "no consensus" version is back to the status quo ante. I will admit that I wouldn't have my back up about this if it weren't for your seriously substandard manners and comportment in the original discussion at talk:small set combined with the colossal gall then to lecture me about mine. But that's the way we stand; if you're going to play wikilawyer, the best you can get is back to where we were before your change. --Trovatore 03:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The no consensus version should not violate WP:V, and as such, should include only verifiable mathematical terminology. If you want to give me the "pipe down whippersnapper" lecture, you can hold your proverbial tongue because I'm not interested. You accuse me of Wikilawyering - at least what I'm trying to do (include "Large set") is based on policy (and consensus, I might add), instead of an irrelevant personal preference that requires sweeping and unsupported changes to the article structure. I've given you everything except exactly what you want - I've agreed to reduce exposition, agreed to link only to valid mathematical terminology, agreed to avoid expanding it into any sort of article, all of which we've come to terms with - but when I still don't give you the split that you want (for no supportable reason), what? You refuse, and insist that we revert to a version that violates policy?? This is crazy, and if you're going to use my "manners" as motivation for refusing to compromise, I'd say you're the one who's out of line. I'm merging the articles, per the status quo, based on lack of consensus, policy, or other means to determine whether or not to split them. I will not include content that violates WP:V. If you want to reintroduce that content without splitting up the articles, feel free, but I will not be the one to reintroduce the WP:OR term "Small set (Ramsey theory)." How's that for compromise? --Cheeser1 05:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no consensus to expand the small set dab page to include the search term large set. You work out how readers are going to find large set (Ramsey theory), without the large set dab page. --Trovatore 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you'll find that before you split them up, this page functioned as the disambig for both. Hence it was the disambig for both terms in per the status quo. We've been over this 100 times. I don't want to have to repeat such a plain and obvious thing again. --Cheeser1 05:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This "I don't want to repeat myself" when you're wrong is the single most offensive aspect of your comportment and manners. It was not the disambig page for both terms; it didn't mention "large". "Large" just redirected there. Redirects are semantical; disambigs are syntactical. For obvious reasons. --Trovatore 05:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Since you've stooped to continually attacking my "conduct" (asking you not to make me repeat myself), why don't you take your snooty self-righteous attitude out of my face? "Redirects are semantical; disambigs are syntactical." Tthat's all well and good, and I'm glad you remember your SAT words, but this mythic "status quo ante" you keep referring to made explicit, unverifiable claims that "large" means "not small". The only reason it was not explicitly the disambig for both search terms is because of this completely false presumption. It was still implicitly the disambig for both. If not for those misguided assumptions, it would been (correctly) the disambig for both search terms. You were far more adamant than I about removing this "exposition," as you called it. Why can't you cope with the consequences of removing it?? --Cheeser1 05:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The natural consequence is the split. Apparently they never should have been combined in the first place, since there's no uniform relationship between "small set" and "large set" in different contexts. --Trovatore 05:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so apparently you're in charge of natural consequences. Good to hear that you've appointed yourself mother nature. There is an obvious uniform relationship: when the two exist, they are opposites. This clearly allows for them to remain together (in a natural way). But you'd rather presume that your idea of "natural" is best. Because it's what you prefer, even if it requires sweeping unilateral changes. If you think your idea of best is actually best, then I'm done talking to you. If there's one thing I've learned on Wikipedia, it's this: when someone doesn't know the difference between their completely subjective (in no way superior) preference and "the best possible way to do it," there's really nothing to discuss. --Cheeser1 05:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just for the record: I have not seen a single instance yet where Trovatore has made anything on wikipedia worse, and I have seen innumerous places where he has made great contributions. I did witness, on the other hand, basic lack of understanding of the meaning of consensus, cockish and inflammatory edit summaries, edit warring, Neanderthal manners in general, and bizarre insistence on "an administrator thinks that I am right, hence I AM RIGHT!", all of the above by Cheeser1 at Calculus, not even three months ago. Arcfrk 06:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's make this an issue about my "manners," especially pertaining to events from months ago. God forbid we discuss the issue at hand. If this is what I get for coming to WPM, I'd rather not come back here. Trovatore admitted to refusing to compromise because he didn't like my attitude, and I'm getting the same crap from someone else to? Forget this. --Cheeser1 11:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are we having a poll here? 

message: I know this was discussed in a previous invocation of this page, but I have to say that after multiple attempts to fix the article by myself (under ip address 71.198.111.245) and others such as User:Mathemaduenn and User:CRGreathouse, the article stands virtually unchanged since April 2007, with the exception that the completely bogus WM invention of "the binary tree" appears to have, finally, been deleted. I have no objection to an article describing the counter-intuitive aspects of infinite cardinality; but this article does more to encourage misunderstanding than it does to bring anything positive to the subject. Sets that have more "reality" than other sets? A cardinality for a "set of gaps", without a definition of "gaps"? "The most important theorem of set theory proves that there are uncountable sets"? The familiar WM usenet argument that omega is a member of the union of all finite sets of naturals? This really is pseudo-math, and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. On the other hand, after putting time into this page without any remnant remaining, I hesitate to enter the fray again. Suggestions on how to proceed are welcome! Chas zzz brown 02:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on it some; I would appreciate it if some other editors would at least watch the article to give feedback, if not help with the editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paradoxes of set theory, redux 

message: * 25 August Hodgson's paradox (PROD by User:Igny; potentially fictional paradox related to the notion that Gaussian distributions are never perfect in the real world)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 01:04, August 28, 2007 (UTC) 
** The prod was denied so I am moving Hodgson's paradox to afd. (Igny 23:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]])