Talk:Branches of mathematics

message: Nothing on the page about either computational number theory or cryptology, as far as I can see. This makes me sceptical about the claim that all areas are covered. Charles Matthews 23:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: about cryptology

message: Charles Matthews had some other lists/categorizations, but I can't find these now. I've been staring at bits of AMS for a while, and, while the top-level categories make sense, some of the subcategories seem insane to me. 11B in particular seemed bizarre. For example, where can we classify stuff published in "Journal of Integer Sequences"?  Thus, I am lead to look for Charles other lists ... linas 18:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if this is helpful, but see Wikipedia:Classifications_of_mathematics_topics which I made redirect to  Areas of mathematics. Oleg Alexandrov 20:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was some non-AMS list that he'd scavenged from somewhere. I didn't much care for such questions when I first saw it. Maybe I should ask directly. linas 03:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, Intereger sequences come under 11Y55. I agree that the AMS has severe limitations when used in a context like Wikipedia. However, as the article states, the AMS classifcation "has been used as a starting point to ensure all areas are covered, and related areas are close together". I fully expect the headings to be tweaked and moved around within the article. Tompw 15:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other lists

message: I note User:Tompw recently deleted, without explaination, some MSC numbers I'd just added. Why? Maybe I misunderstand the purpose of this list, but it seems that it was trying to be a cross-list to the MSC numberigng system, so I'm wondering why these are now being deleted.  linas 21:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I had replied to this, but it seems not. I didn't delete it because it had the extra AMSC numbers, I deleted it because I felt it went into too much detail for the page, although I should've stated this under the edit summary. On reflection, it would be nice to re-include them as easily comprehended areas of Number Theory. I also feel that putting in AMSC numbers below the top level makes the article less readable. (There is something to be said for removing all AMSC numbers - they are a hang over of a copy and paste of the AMSC top levels. - see first few edits). Anyway, hope tha tclears that one up. Tompw 00:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, not too big a deal, otherwise I would ave argued. I think it might be useful to have, somewhere, a cross-reference between MSC numbers and WP categories. However, this is not so urgent that I'll push on this. BTW, you may want to (re-) announce this page on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, as this may get you help filling out some missing sections. linas 23:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think I wrote about it a while ago. I have a map between MSC and WP categories, at User:Mathbot/msc. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of MSC numbers? 

message: Wouldn´t it be more appropiate to include differential geometry in applied mathematics and appart of the algebraic structures? --anon
Most differential geometers I know would place themselves in the study of analysis, geometry, or topology rather than applied mathematics, despite its breadth of applications. FunctorialNonsense (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: about differential geometry

message: I don't see the reason for classifying combinatorics under algebra.  It is not algebra.  Some combinatorics is algebraic, much is not.  Any replies?  (Is this the wrong place for this comment?)  Zaslav 06:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: seems ok to me. go ahead and split it. Mct mht 06:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Combinatorics

message: This "article" is a mere reproduction of American Mathematical Society's Mathematics Subject Classification. It does not even establish basic facts that 
Analysis is commonly divided in two major branches. It does not meet C criteria but is a mere stub. Mootros (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm making an effort to clean up the article. It looks like the material can be divided naturally with encyclopedic information with external sources given here and a page for navigating withing WP at List of mathematics lists. I've already moved some the purely MSC listings to the MSC article.--RDBury (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While I support removing the AMSC numbers (see my comments a few sections up), please ensure that the areas they refer to are still covered. It looks like the numebrs have been removed without adding any real content in their place... for example, there is now nothing on group theory, differential equations, sequences/series or game theory. Tompw (talk) (review) 01:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  mere stub, with an "appendix" of citing the American Mathematical Society's Mathematics Subject Classification 

message: Suggested reading for editors of this page:
. --Siddhant (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested reading 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Areas of mathematics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815034900/http://www.math.niu.edu:80/~rusin/known-math/index/tour_div.html to http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/index/tour_div.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since when is it good form to craft our own punctuation to effect language functions already fulfilled by long-established norms? Or should I say long:established ones. At first, I thought it was just a typo, but as I stopped to consider a helpful edit, I noticed that it's actually the usage decided on for the article. Personally, I don't believe the use of terms such as point:like or real:world has any merit that would lead us to replace the established versions. Wanting to do so seems a bit silly. Aboctok (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I made the edit.  Hopefully I did not miss any of them. Ebony Jackson (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innovation is one thing, but... 

message: This sentence is ambigous and/or wrong and should be changed:
"In addition, as mathematics difficult by some subjects, often the most active, which straddle the boundary between different areas."
I will remove it temporarily. You can replace it with something better if you want.
Mojtabakd (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Ambigous Sentence 

message: Differential equations should have its own sub-category under applied mathematics, preferably written by someone who knows more about the subject than I. I would imagine most folks who study differential equations would consider themselves applied mathematicians, but would raise their eyebrows if referred to as an analyst, so I would argue the template at the bottom should be modified accordingly, but I leave it up to an actual researcher of differential equations (as opposed to myself) to make said call. FunctorialNonsense (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differential Equations 

message: In the introductory section of the Analysis subsection it is written "It is also the language of science itself and is used across chemistry, biology, and physics, from astrophysics to X-ray crystallography" when describing analysis as a whole. While analysis and particularly differential equations are widely used for modelling various phenomena in science I don't see any particular reason for why analysis should be called "the language of analysis" which would probably be better used to describe mathematics as a whole.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by STEMster42 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "language of science" remark