Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2007/Apr

message: I just added this paragraph to the list of trigonometric identities, and maybe someone can add some information in response to the questions below.
----
:  \sin\left(\sum_{i=1}^\infty \theta_i\right)
=\sum_{\mathrm{odd}\  k \ge 1} (-1)^{(k-1)/2}
\sum_{ |A| = k }
\prod_{i \in A} \sin\theta_i \prod_{i \not \in A} \cos\theta_i 
:  \cos\left(\sum_{i=1}^\infty \theta_i\right)
=\sum_{\mathrm{even}\  k \ge 0} (-1)^{k/2}
\sum_{ |A| = k }
\prod_{i \in A} \sin\theta_i \prod_{i \not \in A} \cos\theta_i 
where "|A| = k" means the index A runs through the set of all subsets of size k of the set { 1, 2, 3, ... }. 
In these two identities an asymmetry appears that is not seen in the case of sums of finitely many terms: in each product, there are only finitely many sine factors and cofinitely many cosine factors.
----
* Is absolute convergence strong enough to entail the identities, and is convergence on the right side also then absolute?
* How much can such a hypothesis be weakened, and at how much cost in weakened conclusions?
I derived the identities from scratch without careful attention to these questions (that's quite easy, as you'll see if you try it), then I found them in a couple of old books (19th-century trigonometry texts were quite detailed and thorough), but again without careful attention to what the books said about these questions. --- Lazily... Michael Hardy 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should not the exponent of -1 in the first equation be (k-1)/2 rather than (k+1)/2? So that the first term is positive? JRSpriggs 10:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sines and cosines of sums of infinitely many terms 

message: Further to the discussion above (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Attribution), the poll on the new WP:ATT summary of the verifiability and no original research guidelines is now open, and closes on April 6th. So far it looks close, so please vote to give the mathematicians' point of view.
It is my strong belief (and I am not alone, see above), that the proposed change is definitely a good thing for mathematics, since it reemphasises "attributable" (i.e., the fact that an article has sources) rather than "attribution" (choosing a particular source and citing it). Also, "no original research" would follow as consequence of being attributable, rather than a directive in itself. In some sense, every wikipedia article is "original research", because it gathers information from a variety of sources and presents it in a new (and hopefully fresh, lively and interesting) way. This is particularly true in mathematics, where an encyclopedic explanation of a fact requires careful writing in a novel way, even though there are hundreds of sources. This change, although clarifying existing policy, should help us (I'm an optimist) against the bureaucrats who insist on an inline citation to source every nontrivial sentence.
I also happen to think the change is good for wikipedia, because in other fields, the concept of "truth" is less clear-cut than it is in mathematics, and by replacing "verifiable" by "attributable", the role of an encyclopedia to describe knowledge (which is partly what people believe rather than what is true) is greatly clarified. Geometry guy 19:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The poll is actually here: Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll. I voted against, because I didn't see how the new thing fixed the problem of bureaucratic insistence on citations, while at the same time, it seemed loosen structure enough to allow propaganda and misinformation to be included in a back-handed manner, simple because its "attributable". Its precisely because "truth" is less clear-cut in other areas that it needs to be more carefully defended. linas 05:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia poll on Attribution now open 

message: I wonder what people think of the recent additions to integral equation. To me at appears that it is not yet well-enough established research (see the references section) to show up on Wikipedia. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not well-enough established" is too polite. Kill it. Jmath666 07:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. Policy wise it seems to fail WP:OR, WP:RS. This stuff may be true, but it could be duplication of other work under a new name. However I think I can vouch that Rao is actually a distinguished computer vision worker. I met him one at the Newton institute in Cambridge, so it not a straight forward crank case. --Salix alba (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a photo here, if you remember the face. --KSmrqT 17:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is Dr. Murali(dhara) (Subba)Rao from Stony Brook. Is this the same Rao you met, or was that this Murali Rao? The mathematics seems genuine to me, but nevertheless it is reasonable to wait until we have a reference from a peer-reviewed source.  --LambiamTalk 13:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked at the professional publications listed at his university page, and found not one about "Rao transforms". Charitably, perhaps he is trying to secure international patents before he publishes, and we know journals can have long delays between submission and publication. Uncharitably, most researchers consider it bad form to name something after themselves; such names are best bestowed by others. If he wishes to promote his ideas for financial gain, that is his choice; but if he wishes to use Wikipedia to help him do so, without peer-reviewed publications to back it up, we must decline. --KSmrqT 17:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  OK, I removed the Rao transform from Integral equation (and also Fredholm integral equation, and Volterra integral equation which were edited later). I mentioned to Dr. Rao (more precisely, to the anon address who edited) about WP:NOR and asked him to comment here if he has objections. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (The comment below is from my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Greetings, Professor, and welcome to Wikipedia. We very much appreciate your wish to contribute. Our decision not to accept this particular item is not meant as a reflection on the merits, pro or con. We must ask you to accept the limitations of Wikipedia. Let me briefly explain. We have many thousands of articles on mathematics alone, and we simply do not have a sufficient pool of qualified editors, nor a procedural equivalent of peer review, to weigh the merits of novel unpublished material. No doubt this sometimes means we must forgo the inclusion of valuable new ideas from the cutting edge of research. But the fact is, we are hard pressed to supervise the accuracy and readability of material on topics already published in reputable journals. So we have decided, as a matter of policy, to not accept unpublished material. Perhaps in the future this will change; but for now, we have the awkward task of explaining our limits to enthusiastic new editors such as yourself who are unaware of our restrictions. Please feel free to contribute in other ways, within our limits. We could use the help! --KSmrqT 03:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rao integral equation 

message: A new user calling himself MrMiami has been adding some bizarre nonsense to randomness that claims that, if a probability can be assigned to something, then that thing is "ordered" and therefore "not random". I don't think he's likely to see reason. Please come help. --Trovatore 18:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not bizarre nonsense - it's theology. (Err... perhaps I should think that through again ;->) But the sources he cites are clear, for instance C. S. Lewis. He may have misunderstood them; but it is more likely that they are appealling to a pre-Laplacian vague concept of "randomness". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Lewis claim that randomness cannot be mathematically modeled? I'm not aware that Lewis ever wrote on mathematics. Anyway the material I was referring to was (mostly) in the section called "In the physical sciences"; Lewis can hardly be taken as a source there. --Trovatore 03:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There he seems to be trying to say that no single sequence is random, which is more or less true ("randomness" is a property of an ensemble of sequences). Saying so might help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look back in the history a little further; you'll see what I'm talking about. OK, I'll dig up the diff for you: this diff. --Trovatore 03:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I meant. This is trying to say, strained thtough a lay understanding, that "a random sequence" is uncomputable. It is true that "almost all random sequences" are incomputable; there are only a countable number of algorithms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not what he means. Look at the talk page. He says quite clearly that if an event has a probability, then it's not random. --Trovatore 03:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  requesting help at [[randomness]] 

message: Can someone please check over the area section I added here to make sure it's alright?  Thanks :-) —METS501 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The areas are correct.  Those b's in the second equation should be k's yes?  I don't know what you mean by "therefore integrals of the form..": do you mean that this applies also to rose curves defined with sine?  That would make sense.  Also, since the integrands are the same, the antiderivatives are identical, so the intermediate step shown between the integral and the area should (or at least could) look much more similar.  Cheers, Doctormatt 21:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: After a couple of stabs at it, I think I've fixed the ambiguity. VectorPosse 22:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The areas are not given by the same integral.  For odd parameter, the limits need to be 0 to pi, and for even paramater, 0 to 2pi.  The earlier version was correct. Cheers, Doctormatt 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I got confused for a moment.  It's correct now, I think.  VectorPosse 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  Nice improvement.  Cheers, Doctormatt 23:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rose (mathematics)]] 

message: :Portal:Mathematics looks kind of odd these days, with redlinks for the article of the week and picture of the week. From the history it appears that this state of affairs was present for a while. Anybody knows why things are like this? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fropuff fixed it (that was quick :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These things will happen from time to time if the portal maintainers (presently myself and User:Tompw) are remiss in their duties. Somewhere I'll put up a set of instructions on how to fix things should this happen again (which I'm sure it will). In the meantime, feel free to pester Tompw or myself if something is wrong with the portal. -- Fropuff 23:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Math portal 

message: Equilateral triangle redirects to triangle. Shouldn't there be an own article for it? -- 212.149.217.110 18:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there is enough material concerning equilateral triangles, it should be separated. But, what (besides the definition and perhaps how to construct them) would be in this separate article? Jakob.scholbach 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of topics that already link to equilateral triangle. Perhaps some of them would be relevant for an article on equilateral triangles themselves? —David Eppstein 21:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is plenty which is specific to the Equilateral triangle so I've reverted back to before it was a redirect and added a few things. --Salix alba (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Equilateral triangle]] 

message: It appears that User:Parker007 has asked User:Snowbot to tag a lot of math article talk pages with .  Has anyone heard anything about this? CMummert · talk 00:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing beyond the obvious activity on my watchlist. But I don't see any particular harm in tagging them all. —David Eppstein 03:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus the last time it was discussed was not to do it.  The bot doesn't actually rate the articles, it just puts the tag on them, so a real person still has to do the work. In which case there is no real reason to add the tag.  Also, thousands of articles will only slow down User:WP 1.0 bot more than it is currently slow.  About half articles in the master table are in the "no grade/no importance" entry of the table. CMummert · talk 12:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately it stopped at the letter 'S'. There was also a bug which meant it tagged articles which already had a "math rating" (spelt without an s). If we want for all these pages to be detagged, we need to be sure Snowbot will only detag the pages it tagged, and not previously tagged pages (which may reflect editor priorities). Otherwise, I suggest we let it finish the job: there are only a few letters remaining. Geometry guy 14:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Table. I would support removing the math rating tag from all the articles that are both "Stub-Class" and "Unassessed importance".  It is OK when someone manually adds a tag with these settings, because then someone else can go through and assess the importance and field, but there are currently 2300 such articles, more than we can expect anyone to go through by hand.  We might as well clear them out and then pick up with the manual rating again. This is just my opinion. The user who requested the tagging has not yet commented on his/her goals for doing it. CMummert · talk 14:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone object to the removal of certain tags as described in my previous comment? CMummert · talk 03:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this, especially if Snowolf can persuade Snowbot to remove only the tags of this form which were previously placed by Snowbot: if the bot can read the recent edit history it should be possible. Geometry guy 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support removing auto-tagged articles - it serves no use. (Btw, if the bot can't read the edit history, it could just remove stub-class unassessed-importance articles in :Category:Unassessed-field mathematics articles). Tompw (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it would be fine to make a list of the intersection of those categories and ask SnowBot to untag those articles. I have been manually assigning importance ratings to articles periodically, so not very many of the articles with "unassessed" importance were manually added. CMummert · talk 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be unassessed importance plus unassessed field.  I went through and assigned a field to some of those articles, but not always an importance; those tags could maybe be left in place. --Trovatore 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would generate the list fresh, so articles that have been rated by hand ought to be left alone. There are currently 2153 articles in both :Category:Unassessed-importance mathematics articles and :Category:Unassessed-field mathematics articles. That seems like a reasonable set from which to remove the tags.  I would make sure that every article with a quality class other than stub has an importance rating before making the list, so those would not be untagged. CMummert · talk 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: User:SnowBot is making the changes now; I estimate it will take about 8 hours from now to go through the entire list. CMummert · talk 15:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is already a system for identifying which area the articles are in: categories. They allow User:Mathbot to generate the list of mathematics articles. The project banner is for rating the quality of articles in the WP 1.0 scheme. It does no good to put on the banner if every article ends up "unrated". This was discussed last fall and the (unanimous) consensus then was not to put the banner on every math article. User:Parker007 asked for the articles to be tagged without bringing it up here; the untagging is essentially just restoring things to the way they were before then. CMummert · talk 18:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a great opportunity here for editors to go through Snowbot's recent edit history and tag any articles they think deserve a tag (with rating, importance and field of course). I did a small handful recently. It doesn't take long to scan through the list, particularly if you just want to tag a small number of articles. Geometry guy 12:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging math articles 

message: Should there be such category? There was only Image analysis in it and the category page was blank. So have have changed Image analysis to Category:Mathematics. Jmath666 20:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a upper-case problem; see :Category:Applied mathematics. Charles Matthews 21:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've deleted the now-empty category. —METS501 (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Applied Mathematics 

message: I need some help there. From User:JJL on Talk:Computational mathematics: "I don't believe this is a separate field but rather a different name for what is now usually called computational science. I suggest redirecting it there and editing that article to mention that, indeed, computational science as a named academic program often has an emphasis on the applications to science." This [sentence] makes no sense. Some of you made few helpful edits to computational mathematics but that does not seem to be enough to make User:JJL go away and stop claiming that computational mathematics does not exist and pushing to delete the article. Thanks. Jmath666 00:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The real problem is that no-one is wrong or right here. Some groups use the term in a way that is almost indistinguishable from computational science, except for the pretension that, since they are mathematicians, they must be doing it right. Others prefer to use the term differently. I think the first may have more clout.  --LambiamTalk 01:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. But the issue is that the article should exist and explain that. The different uses of the term can be easily supported by sources and I am not asking for help with that. I need support for the existence of the article. Jmath666 01:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: With the lame discussion we have had (for which I'm more than a little bit responsible, but which is most likely due to there being no persuasive arguments either way) I don't see how this will lead anywhere. Either approach (separate article, or redirect + treatment in Sci. computing) seems fine to me. What I find much more of an issue is that the current article Computational mathematics is a painful read, and when you manage to read through you emerge at the other end with the feeling "huh? what happened?". Merging it with Scientific computing will not improve the readability of the latter article – which itself offers considerable opportunity for improvement on the scale for reading pleasure.  --LambiamTalk 07:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In the spirit of the previous comment, I'd like to concentrate more on the content than on the nomenclature. Neither article seems to mention any work on scientific computing (computation ?) in algebra. Yet, pioneering work on computer algebra systems, such as PARI and MAGMA aside, at the moment, number-therertic applications such as primality testing and factorization are arguably among the most important in the whole field of scientific computation (think RSA, cybersecurity, etc). Is there an article that discusses it? Which article would be closest in spirit to Richard Crandall and Carl Pomerance, Prime numbers. A computational perspective (ISBN: 978-0-387-25282-7)? Arcfrk 07:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help with [[computational mathematics]] 

message: Do you think that computational mathematics should be a separate article or, as JJL suggests, redirected to computational science and that article edited by JJL "to mention that, indeed, computational science as a named academic program often has an emphasis on the applications to science" (sic)? Please vote separate article or redirect. Thank you. Jmath666 04:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the lame discussion we have had (for which I'm more than a little bit responsible, but which is most likely due to there being no persuasive arguments either way) I don't see how this will lead anywhere. Either approach (separate article, or redirect + treatment in Sci. computing) seems fine to me. What I find much more of an issue is that the current article Computational mathematics is a painful read, and when you manage to read through you emerge at the other end with the feeling "huh? what happened?". Merging it with Scientific computing will not improve the readability of the latter article – which itself offers considerable opportunity for improvement on the scale for reading pleasure.  --LambiamTalk 07:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In the spirit of the previous comment, I'd like to concentrate more on the content than on the nomenclature. Neither article seems to mention any work on scientific computing (computation ?) in algebra. Yet, pioneering work on computer algebra systems, such as PARI and MAGMA aside, at the moment, number-therertic applications such as primality testing and factorization are arguably among the most important in the whole field of scientific computation (think RSA, cybersecurity, etc). Is there an article that discusses it? Which article would be closest in spirit to Richard Crandall and Carl Pomerance, Prime numbers. A computational perspective (ISBN: 978-0-387-25282-7)? Arcfrk 07:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling for a straw vote 

message: Cross-posted from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology:
*Talk:Stata#PanelWhiz - Should external and wiki links to PanelWhiz be included in the Stata article?  Is PanelWhiz notable? - 16:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PanelWhiz 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curve transformation. The author of the page describes it as original research. Charles Matthews 19:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD nomination 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet shorthand notation seems to be misnamed for what I've always known as "ASCII math notation". Note, there may not be one standard method, but I believe the overall concept is notable for an article, at least in terms of the history of computing. Yea or nay, I think this nomination needs more knowledgeable input. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD nomination 

message: Anyone think that the double integral article should be merged into the multiple integral article? The triple integral article already redirects to multiple integral.--Jersey Devil 02:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be sure, multiple integral is a lot more detailed, but very general + many details ⇒ intimidating (frequently). I think that the double integral article can be considerably improved, with more geometric treatment and little or no measure theory (at the moment, it reads more like misconceptions about double integral). Arcfrk 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently the double integral covers basically the same as Fubini's theorem but expressed in such a way as to cause uncertainty and doubt in any freshman. Multiple integral has similar problems, this long page could be shorterened by moving the majority of content for polar, spherical and cylindrical coordinates into their respective articles. I've now made double integral a redirect, but there is scope for expanding it. --Salix alba (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that was appropriate. Multiple integral is not very user-friendly. Double integral needed some better introductory material, but if you are just in need of a basic introduction to the calculus of multiple integrals, you don't want generality, you want some idea of the picture and the reasons why two definite integral operations should commute. Charles Matthews 07:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Double integral]] and [[Multiple integral]] 

message: Something bizarre and troubling has come to my attention. I was looking at the article on classical modular curves and saw that two superscripts were closed with  instead of . I fixed the problem, but was puzzled that something with such dramatically visible consequences had previously escaped notice. So I checked the edit history, which showed the problem had been there for a long time, flying under the radar of a number of seasoned editors. This struck me as odd, but I moved on. But just now, I found the same phenomenon with a subscript tag in an article, area of a disk, I have worked on and scrutinized repeatedly. Here, another editor did the fixing. The history claims a subscript tag has been missing for some time. I don't believe it; I'm sure the presented history is false.
: False histories:
:* classical modular curve
:* area of a disk
I don't know what the source of this may be, whether a software glitch or deliberate foul play; but we really need to be able to trust histories. At the moment, I do not. --KSmrqT 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially the same "disclosures" occur in Talk:Area of a disk, where they are at least as visible. It is hard to imagine David Eppstein not noticing the diminished appearance of this contribution of his.  --LambiamTalk 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh.  Weird.  The same thing happened on the Hilbert matrix article.  I wondered how that could've escaped so many people's attention for so long...  Lunch 04:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Must be some bizarre server problem. I just saw another example today, at crystalline cohomology. It has already been corrected, but I am absolutely certain that the problem (unclosed sub) wasn't there whenever I had looked at it since the article was created, and the last time was less than a week ago. Arcfrk 04:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the server is taking the slashes out of the close tags? Weird. I wonder if it's happening with any tags other than sub and sup...ref could be particularly disasterous since if the references tag is inside a ref it won't ever get expanded. And yes, I imagine I would have noticed the shrunken text in that comment, had it been like that before. —David Eppstein 04:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) This is probably related to a recent update of HTML Tidy, announced at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Tidy upgraded. It seems like the old version of HTML Tidy repaired stuff like a1 by replacing the second  tag by a close tag, while the new version does not do this. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So does this mean that xyz nested superscripts will start working? Good news if so! —David Eppstein 05:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have had a workaround for the nesting, using a  around the inner script. But if Jitse is right, the errors have been in the source the whole time, silently corrected. --KSmrqT 06:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Should we ask a bot owner to list pages with ... or ... that were previously automagically repaired, so that we can fix problems now no longer covered-up?  --LambiamTalk 07:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree. I often make the mistake of missing out the slash in a closing sup or sub, but was previously forgiven by the generous HTML tidying code. Now it is not so generous, we should all go back to articles we have edited and check them for mistakes! I made this mistake several weeks ago at affine connection for example, but only discovered and fixed it today. Geometry guy 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I can recommend the editor wikEd, which helps saving time by inserting sup and sub and much more. For those (like me) who do not crave for the command line text editor atmosphere, this nice tool creates some comfortable editing environment. Jakob.scholbach 17:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to do a database dump search and find all instances of ......, ......, ......, and .......  Note that some of these might actually not be problems (like if the user intended xyz) but if they're listed by a bot then we can go through them and check. —METS501 (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For completeness, include ... and ....  --LambiamTalk 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I'm doing each case separate, because it's easier that way, and I'll include those two.  It looks like it's very successful, almost all the articles it's catching have the problem, which is thousands and thousands of articles, unfortunately.  I'll post when I'm done making the list. —METS501 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the newest dump is 7 days old, so it's catching many that've already been fixed (it caught the versions before these edits, for example) so I'm going to have to parse the live versions of pages before presenting the list. —METS501 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What a hero METS501 is! Things like this are what make WP so great! Geometry guy 18:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL.  First set of data done at User:Mets501/Pages that need to be fixed. —METS501 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, two sets done; that's about 900 pages to work with so far.  I'm supposed to be on Wikibreak now, so I can't spend any more time, but that should be enough for the time being. —METS501 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should make a separate list of problematic maths articles (the intersection of the list produced by METS501 and the list of mathematics articles).  --LambiamTalk 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fixed a very small handful of /sup errors (often mine) in mathematical articles. It would be good to update this problem from time to time, even if it requires us to drag the magnificent user Mets501 out of wikibreak. Geometry guy 20:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've updated the list.  I can do this once or twice a day if that's the kind of update that you mean. —METS501 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, fantastic! Once a day (or every few days) would suit me fine! Lets hope the chemists can sort out their stall too. Geometry guy 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I've rewritten the program, so all I have to do is press one button and the bot updates the list :-)  I can run it often, because it's no work for me!  —METS501 (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work so far. Some questions: Does the consolidated list include all combinations of subscript and superscript? Can we have a consolidated list intersected with mathematics articles to let the chemists fend for themselves? How do I prevent an article with properly nested script tags (xyz) from being listed every time? The numbers do not seem to indicate the number of errors; can that be changed? Can we get a display of a little text surrounding each error, so we don't have to search through twenty tags to find one? --KSmrqT 23:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  Unfortunately, I have very little time now; not nearly enough to invest in writing code much more complex than it is now.  It looks like the list is being weeded through quite fast now by Beetstra with AWB, and the rest we'll have to be done by hand.  I'll look into putting in some surrounding text, but I'm not sure how quick it would be do that.  If you remove a page from the list, the bot won't add it back, so if it's on the list in error, just remove it.  The bot has two functions (at the moment): it can go through the database and check for ... and ...., and it can go through each page listed at User:Mets501/Pages that need to be fixed and check if it still has a syntax error.  I'm going to expand the first function soon to include other syntax errors as listed above. —METS501 (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History alteration 

message: ::I'm going to do a database dump search and find all instances of ......, ......, ......, and .......  Note that some of these might actually not be problems (like if the user intended xyz) but if they're listed by a bot then we can go through them and check. —METS501 (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For completeness, include ... and ....  --LambiamTalk 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I'm doing each case separate, because it's easier that way, and I'll include those two.  It looks like it's very successful, almost all the articles it's catching have the problem, which is thousands and thousands of articles, unfortunately.  I'll post when I'm done making the list. —METS501 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the newest dump is 7 days old, so it's catching many that've already been fixed (it caught the versions before these edits, for example) so I'm going to have to parse the live versions of pages before presenting the list. —METS501 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: What a hero METS501 is! Things like this are what make WP so great! Geometry guy 18:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL.  First set of data done at User:Mets501/Pages that need to be fixed. —METS501 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, two sets done; that's about 900 pages to work with so far.  I'm supposed to be on Wikibreak now, so I can't spend any more time, but that should be enough for the time being. —METS501 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we should make a separate list of problematic maths articles (the intersection of the list produced by METS501 and the list of mathematics articles).  --LambiamTalk 20:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fixed a very small handful of /sup errors (often mine) in mathematical articles. It would be good to update this problem from time to time, even if it requires us to drag the magnificent user Mets501 out of wikibreak. Geometry guy 20:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've updated the list.  I can do this once or twice a day if that's the kind of update that you mean. —METS501 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, fantastic! Once a day (or every few days) would suit me fine! Lets hope the chemists can sort out their stall too. Geometry guy 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I've rewritten the program, so all I have to do is press one button and the bot updates the list :-)  I can run it often, because it's no work for me!  —METS501 (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work so far. Some questions: Does the consolidated list include all combinations of subscript and superscript? Can we have a consolidated list intersected with mathematics articles to let the chemists fend for themselves? How do I prevent an article with properly nested script tags (xyz) from being listed every time? The numbers do not seem to indicate the number of errors; can that be changed? Can we get a display of a little text surrounding each error, so we don't have to search through twenty tags to find one? --KSmrqT 23:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  Unfortunately, I have very little time now; not nearly enough to invest in writing code much more complex than it is now.  It looks like the list is being weeded through quite fast now by Beetstra with AWB, and the rest we'll have to be done by hand.  I'll look into putting in some surrounding text, but I'm not sure how quick it would be do that.  If you remove a page from the list, the bot won't add it back, so if it's on the list in error, just remove it.  The bot has two functions (at the moment): it can go through the database and check for ... and ...., and it can go through each page listed at User:Mets501/Pages that need to be fixed and check if it still has a syntax error.  I'm going to expand the first function soon to include other syntax errors as listed above. —METS501 (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidying up after the change to [[HTML Tidy]]

message: Just to bring back an old discussion about content from Citizendium, the Special:Export page works on Citizendium to get the wikicode of any page.  For example, to get the code of their Mathematics page,  visit http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Export/Mathematics.  Not in ideal form, but it's a way. —METS501 (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright of these pages is, unfortunately, still unclear.  It would be prudent to avoid copying material from CZ to here until CZ gets their act together. CMummert · talk 00:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely.  I was just pointing out that we actually don't need registered users there to get their source code. —METS501 (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizendium content 

message: This article was created a few months ago and has sat mostly untouched for two months.  As it stands, the article has problems visible from even a cursory reading.  I was about to start working on it, but first I want to get a sense of whether this article belongs on WP at all.  On the one hand this is a famous and important result that is covered in practically every text on mathematical logic.  On the other hand, the proof can be found in practically every text on mathematical logic, so sketching the proof here only duplicates what is already available (and probably better) in other locations. CMummert · talk 22:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be much work to fix it up? It's kind of entertaining that the proof is here, and a person can jump into it and at least pretend that they understand it. Adding a list of books that explain the proof more thoroughly would certainly be useful as well. I see on the Talk page that you left some suggestions for the creator of the article, and he hasn't followed up. EdJohnston 22:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a lot of work to me! For one thing, it is dangerously close to WP:OR. The use of three digit codons follows Hofstadter, but a different coding is used and is unsourced. It is also too technical, and the English is not great. At the moment, I find the proof sketch in the main article more helpful. In particular, I think it is better not to emphasise a particular choice of coding. Geometry guy 11:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To fix this article would require a great deal of effort.  The correct proof has some technical, subtle parts that take care to explain. I think the article is too vague, not too technical. For examples of problems in the current article, look at the paragraphs numbered 1, 6, and 7. CMummert · talk 11:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have seen this discussion only now, indeed English is not my first language, and I'll see what I can do regarding your comments. Anyway if the article is too vague for some and too technical for others, maybe that means that it's just in the corect level for others? no original research was done here, and the 3 digit codon I used is borrowed from the "Goedel Esher Bach" book though I used a different coding exactly because the choice is not important - surely you wouldn't call this WP:OR. There's also a link to the formal proof. Since this theorem atracts a lot of attention from people with only limited mathematical background, it seems to me nice that there's something they can read which would hopefully give them a clue about how the theorem is proven.Dan Gluck 19:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors here will be uncomfortable if they don't think your article is correct. Do you have the background to fix the subtleties mentioned by CMummert? I suppose you could skip the hard parts if you left a pointer to a book that supplied the missing material.  But then the fact that your coding is different might confuse people who had to switch to the book. EdJohnston 01:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the problem wasn't that it's incorrect, but that I skipped some technical parts. Since there's a pointer to the full proof on the web, and (I think) I mentioned all  the places where I have done so, I don't see a problem. The proof on the web doesn't use a coding, since it does not need to specify one explicitly; the coding I have given is only an example for pedagogical purpose, as in  Hofstadter's "Goedel Esher Bach" book. I would love to use the coding in that book, but I don't have it, and anyway I'm not sure it's permitted by copyright law.
Anyway perhaps I missed it, but all of CMummert's specific comments (in the article's talk page) are related to the form of the article - he suggests deviding it to sections, adding more links etc. I saw no content-related specific comment. Dan Gluck 19:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I added some comments on the article's talk page about the content.  It's not the content of this particular article that led me to ask a question here; I am certain that this particular article can be fixed up, and i was about to do so myself. The real question is whether an article entirely devoted to a proof is acceptable. I didn't want to spend a while making changes only to have the article is nominated for deletion. Personally, the more I read this sketch the more I like it. CMummert · talk 20:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a lawyer, but I believe it is legitimate to use Hofstadter's coding as long as his book is clearly cited (and this has to be done anyway to source the approach taken by the article). This would require some work, however, because Hofstadter's coding uses the successor function to define numbers, instead of the (rather nice) base 10 coding of the article. Perhaps a compromise coding would work better (although I still worry a bit about OR - unusually for me, since I think explaining things in new, interesting and engaging ways is exactly what an encyclopedia should do). Anyway, I have GEB and would be happy to contribute the relevant information. Geometry guy 15:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the criterion for OR is this WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F. I don't think the article satisfies any of the conditions there. If everybody agrees that there are no mistakes, and it is a rephrasing of the proof (hopefully in a more understandable way) with some technicalities overlooked, I don't think it's OR. Dan Gluck 20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Proof sketch for Gödel's first incompleteness theorem]] 

message: Hi.  I noticed when adding a link somewhere to Bijection that we have individual articles for Bijection, injective function and surjective function, as well as an article called Bijection, injection and surjection.  Is this the optimal way to cover these topics?  It seems redundant to me.  At the least, should bijection be renamed to bijective function, for consistency? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your suggestion to rename is spot on to make the titles at least parallel. I would say that the Bijection, injection and surjection is redundant, except it's actually very nicely written. For now, I've linked the three concepts in that article to their respective pages, and I've added some  templates in each section. I'm interested to hear other opinions on this. - grubber 19:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick review of the talk pages shows that this has been discussed several times.  I made some comments here. CMummert · talk 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that, while opinions differ on what to do with the joint article vis-a-vis the separate ones, there is at least a broad agreement that bijection should be moved to bijective function, for consistency with injective function and surjective function.  I see that this point has been raised at Talk:Bijection#Rename?, but not much came of the discussion.  I've commented there; perhaps it would be appropriate to do an "official" move request through WP:RM, or we could just agree to do it because it makes sense. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that you will be able to do the move yourself, because of edit history at the redirect page (I'd be curious to know if you can, in fact).  In any case there are quite a few admins in the math project, so you won't need to go to WP:RM to get this done.  Let's wait a little while to give people a chance to object, though. CMummert · talk 21:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  (edit conflict) While opinions have differed in the past, perhaps it is time to revisit the idea.  I can't imagine anything doing a search and lading on Bijection, injection and surjection.  I agree, though, that the material there is good.  Is there any reason this good stuff can't be moved to each of the three separate articles?  VectorPosse 21:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (reply to CMummert) I'm one of the admins who monitors WP:RM and moves pages daily, so that part's not a problem. The only reason I suggested going through RM is that it sets up a somewhat official discussion area, and that's often a good way to bring people with opinions out of the woodwork. It's no problem at all for me to set up a discussion, but at the same time, it's really not a formal necessity. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that - you weren't on my list of admins who contribute to the math project. I think that a formal process isn't warranted if there is clear consensus for the move. Renaming pages isn't supposed to be a big deal.  I went through the page history of the destination and it has only ever been a redirect. CMummert · talk 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries; most of my contributions here aren't math related.  You're certainly welcome to contact me anytime you need an admin who's mathematics-literate.  For this page, I think we'd be fine moving it after allowing a day or so for anybody to raise an objection.  (It would probably be fine to do it right now, but it can't hurt to sleep on it.)  Because I may not be online tomorrow, I've gone ahead and deleted all but the top redirect at bijective function, so now anyone can carry out the move. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think redundancy can be discussed, but I object to changing bijection, which is definitely used, although, perhaps, not as much as bijective map, to bijective function, which is very contrived sounding and not at all common. See my comments here. Arcfrk 04:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, now that you say that, I guess I have heard "bijective map" more than "bijective function".  Should we be talking about moving the other two articles to injective map and surjective map?  I think all three should be the same, and injection isn't available. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care, because there will be redirects, but I think that "map" is a poor choice because it has too many real world meanings.  "Function" is much more clear, and the bare word "Bijection" is pure jargon and thus unconfusing. CMummert · talk 00:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with injection (mathematics) and surjection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that mirrors common usage the best. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant articles 

message: I recently ran across some copyright violations, and read the policy. I think I understand how to go about cleaning those up. This article is different. It's an outright copy of this newsletter article. Interestingly, there's no copyright notice on the isi web site – or at least, I couldn't find it. Also of interest, this article was contributed by User:Pdagum, who one might reasonably suppose to be a relative (son Paul?) of Prof. Dagum.
Anyway, I'm unsure what to do about this one. It's an "in memoriam" article, quoted verbatim. As such it certainly doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Suggestions?  DavidCBryant 14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like a violation to me- copyright is assumed unless specifically released. So "no copyright notice" isn't good enough, we need a specific statement that it is free content. Staecker 14:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would remove the copyrighted text, leaving a stub, and leave an explanatory message for the article's creator.  You could try  along with an explanation of the specific situation. CMummert · talk 14:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about plagiarism 

message: Does someone know the title of the painting by Albrecht Dürer (I guess, not absolutely sure though), which shows a projection a smaller shape onto a bigger canvas? I know, the description is very vague... The image has some geometrical interest, I'd like to put it to projective space  (if it is available somewhere). Jakob.scholbach 04:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one most often used is this picture of a lute, from Dürer's Underweysung der Messung mit dem Zirkel und Richtscheyt, Nuremberg, 1525. However, another choice is the reclining nude from the same work. I would expect that an image scanned from the book is free of copyright restrictions, but that's a legal question, and the scans I have seen on the web are not ideal. --KSmrqT 07:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projective space - painting of Dürer 

message: Any hope of evolving Mathematical landscape into something encyclopedic or shall it go straight to AfD? --Pjacobi 13:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point of the article is something called the "Mathematical landscape conjecture".  The author of the article is new here, so maybe asking him/her for a reference is a good first step. CMummert · talk 14:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Strange indeed. Although there is a game some theoretical physicists play with speculating about why certain numbers appear, we can say things about any number. For example, 1728 (which is 123) is a very special number that is not listed. As written, this article is hardly more than numerology. --KSmrqT 21:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a message on User talk:Qloop. Let's see what the author has to say. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This one has been struggling me somewhat. Although it is not very far from my research area, I have not heard of the "mathematical landscape", and the "mathematical landscape conjecture" seems to be not only unsourced and very vague, but also complete nonsense. I tried to source this article myself, but the best I have found so far is one of John Baez's nice pages. I think I know what the article is trying to say (and there is something interesting to say here), but at present it is clearly in the AfD firing line, and is a magnet for a whole load of numerological speculation. For example, the "26 dimensions" section has already attracted the comment that there are also 26 sporadic groups, which is a completely unrelated fact (as far as I know from sources to date). Geometry guy 17:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard it given the explicit name of "mathematical landscape conjecture", but I'll affirm that it is the defacto deeply held tenet held by those theoretical physicists who have wandered off to string theory and beyond. After the fantastic successes of General Relativity, Standard Model and QCD,  and the near-misses of Kaluza-Klein theory, supersymmetry and etc., a large part of the theoretical physics community decided that surely, the Theory of Everything would be immediately obvious, if they just knew only a tiny little bit more math, or that, at least, if nothing else, they'd be the second person on the planet to figure it out after Ed Witten did. The near-miss of Monstrous Moonshine only affirmed this belief of the congruence of mathematical landmarks and physical reality: there was 3 or 6 or 12 months or so, in the mid-1980's, where a lot of physicists honestly, truly believed that the monster group really was the group that described the known universe and everything in it. A lot of ink was spilled. Well, here we are 20 years later, and we've got doodly-squat to show for it.  The experimental physicists are all pissed off and are saying that the theoreticians are shirking their work and have abandoned them, and string theory is theological mumbo-jumbo.  But the core belief remains: if we can only find that one magic mathematical expression, it will be everything, and of course it'll be a Lie group, and of course it'll be p-adic, and of course it will have a j-invariant, and a moduli space, and etc. woven into one beautiful whole. Why, in fact, the ratio of the strong/weak/electric/gravitational forces are in the same proportion as the first four Mersenne primes! Didn't know that? Well, there are string theory papers out on ArXiv that explore this numerology... linas 00:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To be clear, I'd probably vote to delete this article, since it does seem to be OR. linas 00:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the article could be saved by changing the focus to the sociological phenomenon described by Linas in his message here. JRSpriggs 07:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange article 

message: The level of activity at the physics project has fallen way off. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Is this WikiProject moribund?. If any of you have an interest in physics, but have not been paying attention to it lately, now would be a good time to get involved. JRSpriggs 07:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think emphasising high-profile departures is very helpful. Charles Matthews 12:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that killing the messenger is very helpful. JRSpriggs 08:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't intending to. I was commenting on the content of that discussion. Charles Matthews 11:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help the Physics Project 

message: Many of the requests currently listed on Articles requested for more than two years seem to be mathematical ones. The requests on this page are those which have been unfulfilled for the longest time, and we therefore tend to treat them with a higher priority than those requested only for one year and the other request pages. If any members of this WikiProject have sufficient knowledge and access to sources to write a good stub on one or more of these topics, it would be much appreciated. Thanks – Gurch 10:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are almost all logic articles; more specifically set theory. Charles Matthews 12:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All but one of the titles listed on Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year#Mathematics are also on the > 2-year list, and are moreover conveniently selected on being maths topics. (The extra title looks more like a physics topic to me.)  --LambiamTalk 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: These are lazy answers :) If e.g. amenable set should be a redirect then why not make a redirect rather than just chatting about it? But are we talking about admissible or amenable sets? The first is mentioned in constructible universe, the second is not. After an hour searching, I eventually found a reference discussing the distinction between admissible and amenable sets, but did not understand it. Surely we can do better than this :( Geometry guy 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Cheer up geometry guy! I think I finally understood the difference between amenable sets and admissible sets, so I fixed that. I also redirected the redlinks that seem to have something to do with Determinacy to that article. Geometry guy 14:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you took some action, but I must say that the end result is not as perspicuous as one wishes. Someone will eventually have to sit down and write some text. I myself must continue to plead laziness for the time being. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 09:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested articles 

message: The article Mean information has been nominated for deletion.  Comment as you see fit.  Anville 19:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mean information]] 

message: I guess this does not qualify as encyclopedic content per WP:NOR. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I received the pamphlet I referenced not too long ago in school. The front cover said Variable Shape Geometry by Val Bess and that's all. I asked one math professor about it and he said that it (the geometry) is still being developed and the pamphlet is what the "creator" has 'discovered' so far. I really don't know if it was published or not but it seemed worthy enough for an article so I made one.Burnedthru 22:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes it worthy?  I'd like to know.  There's not enough in the article for me to really understand what this geometry is about.  It seems kind of strange to include something you found in a pamphlet here in Wikipedia before many other, more standard notions of geometry are covered. Rybu 22:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Before what others? Burnedthru 23:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If more information is required, I'd be happy to add some, it's just that I have no one to ask at this moment and am pretty busy. Burnedthru 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-commutative geometry is a big branch of modern mathematics. Variable shape geometry on the other hand, I doubt many people have heard of.   My point is, just because somebody produces a pamphlet and includes the word geometry in the title, does that mean it should be linked to the geometry Wikipedia page?  I don't understand Wikipedia's mission well enough to answer the question.  I don't think any reasonable encyclopedia would include variable shape geometry in a listing of geometries, since it's obscure. But maybe Wikipedia is happy to promote anything, regardless of how obscure it is.  Take your article on variable shape geometry for example.  Does isometry group make sense for this geometry, and if so, what is the isometry group of the geometry?  That would help me understand what this geometry is about. As it is, the article tells me very little about anything, other than some guys name. Rybu 23:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should go straight to AfD. It is not a question of priority: deletion is clearly justified under WP:NOR and the article seems to me to be palpable nonsense. For a start, semicircles (oblate or otherwise) are not parabolas (and how are they defined anyway?). Then we have "Later on, triangles can be proven to be squares because of the Congruency Postulate, which is very complicated." The congruency postulate is, of course, not defined. The word "indiminent" does not exist, and one of the diagrams has a "parabola" drawn between lines which are not parallel, contrary to the unexplained hypothesis. Lets not waste any more time on this! Geometry guy 01:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I nominated it for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variable-shape geometry. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Variable Shape Geometry]] 

message: Someone has proposed that Euler on infinite series be transwikied to Wikiquote.  I think instead the article should be expanded to be more than just a quote.  Perhaps some of this pages public can contribute. Michael Hardy 23:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't this be merged into Divergent series?  --LambiamTalk 06:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euler on infinite series 

message: :Category:Complex systems is on CfD []. --Salix alba (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I nominated the category for deletion, the category has been cleaned up, and a solid justification has been given for its use.  It no longer looks like a category to collect anything that is just "complex" and a "system" according to the casual reader, and I would certainly not attempt to delete this category if it remained this way.  However, it would be good to avoid having people put things like :Category:Role-playing game systems back into the category because "they are called systems, and they look complex" (which describes why some articles and subcategories were in this category before clean-up).  What are people's thoughts on renaming this as :Category:Complex systems studies so that the category stays focused on the field of complex systems and does not become a category for anything named a "system"?  Dr. Submillimeter 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be a way forward, although I think something like :Category:Complex systems science or :Category:Complex systems (science) would be better. Geometry guy 17:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The approach that some people take to categorization is similar to jamming a square peg through a round hole.  If the category name vaguely seems to describe an article, then some people will stuff that article in the category even if it is inappropriate.  Explanatory text may limit the problem, but some people will ignore the text anyway.  Renaming the category with a less ambiguous name is a more robust solution.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it must be moved :Category:Complex systems (science) sounds good to me, Complex systems studies does not work for me as no one uses that term. BTW the category seems only weekly linked in the mathematical should it be included in :Category:Chaos theory or :Category:Non-linear systems. --Salix alba (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Complex systems 

message: Please consider this list of edits which hits all of WAREL's pet topics. I didn;t see any that looked harmful; but I can't tell where the ja: links are going. Would people keep an eye on this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the first three ja: links I saw, one was valid, one was a change to the literal translation of the English title, which was a redirect at ja:, and one was a translation that didn't seem to have an article at ja:. In other words, the links seem to be made without any reference to existence of Japanese articles. JPD (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warel? 

message: 12988816 (number) is nominated for deletion. The AFD discussion is here. CMummert · talk 15:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[12988816 (number)]] is nominated for deletion 

message: Nationalists are trying to move this article to a silly title again. —Ruud 23:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article used to have the name "Islamic mathematics" for most of its existence. This is a rather common name for the subject (I get 19300 Google hits for "Islamic mathematics" versus 16200 for "Arabic mathematics"), and hardly a silly title. You yourself moved History of mathematics in Islamic culture to Islamic mathematics on April 28, 2006. Then, on March 10 you moved Islamic mathematics to Arabic mathematics. Why? Was there any discussion on this, and was a consensus reached? When User:Jahangard moved it back, complaining that the move was unilateral, you immediately reverted this, as far as I see without discussion why "Islamic mathematics" is a worse title than "Arabic mathematics". Was that wise? It looks like your March 10 unilateral move triggered the proposal to rename the article from "Arabic Mathematics" to "Mathematics in Medieval Muslim World". On the talk page, the supporters of the (ill-advised) proposed renaming appear to favour "Islamic Mathematics" over that long-winded title. My suggestion to you is to undo your last move, and try to obtain consensus that "Islamic mathematics" is to be preferred over "Mathematics in Medieval Muslim World". If such consensus has been reached, emotions have come down, and you still think "Arabic mathematics" is the best title, open a discussion about it.  --LambiamTalk 06:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think both "Arabic mathematics" and "Islamic mathematics" are fine (I personally even prefer the term Islamic mathematics, my move last month was motivated by more pragmatic reasons and, given the lack of dedicated editors of this article, more a case of WP:BOLD than a "unilateral action".) The proposed move is to "Mathematics in Medieval Muslim World", however. —Ruud 08:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was probably too frustrated yesterday and should have approached this in a more calmly and with more tact. I would appreciatie it, if some looked at it with a fresh look. —Ruud 09:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Arabic mathematics|Arabic]]/[[Islamic mathematics]] 

message: I've always seen a relation shown as something like x~y on some set S. And that this relation is an "equivalence relation" iff it is reflexive, symmetric and transitive. So that for instance you could have x~y if x<y on the integer set Z. So this relation would not be an "equivalence relation" since x is not less than x so x~x is not true and so ~ is not reflexive. So ~ is a relation but not necessarily an "equivalence relation". But the article on the following articles seem contradictory to this saying that ~ alone denotes an equivalence relation:
*Equivalence relation: An equivalence relation between a and b is often denoted as "a ~ b" or "a ≡ b". 
*Tilde#Mathematics: In mathematics, the tilde, sometimes pronounced "twiddle," is often used to denote an equivalence relation between two objects. Thus "x ~ y" means "x is equivalent to y". (Note that this is quite different from stating that x equals y.)
Is there something I am missing here?--Jersey Devil 01:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairly rare to use the tilde for a relation that's not an equivalence relation, but you won't go to jail for it.  Not sure I really understand your question, though. --Trovatore 02:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may not go to jail for it, but the physical world is not what one ought truly be concerned with.  Rather one's soul.  There is a very special section of Hades reserved for those that use a tilde for a non-equivalence relation.  And it's the section that is not filled with interesting people.  --C S (Talk) 21:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree, x~y almost always means an equivalence relation. But suppose a broad survey finds that one third of the uses are for relations not satisfying equivalence (a generous estimate); the two "often" statements quoted are no less correct. (Note the word is "often", not "always".) As a practical matter, we are unlikely to be confused by seeing a "~" used with uncertain meaning, because authors habitually tell us the meaning they intend. --KSmrqT 03:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: When I've seen ~ used, there really is an idea of equivalence involved -- not just a generic relationship. Two states in a communicating class in a Markov chain are "equivalent"... or whenever you have equivalence classes, for example, in the field of fractions (which, even though 1/2 and 2/4 are fractions of different integers, they are equivalent). In your example, x<y, this also fails because of symmetry (that if x~y then y~x, that is, x<y and y<x, which is clearly not true). However, even though < is not an equivalence relation, the relation ≤ over the real line is. I don't see the contradiction in the examples you give. - grubber 03:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "≤" is not an equivalence relation, since it also obviously fails symmetry. Paul August ☎ 03:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Grr, of course. My bad :) - grubber 17:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't worry we all have mental lapses - mine come more and more lately. The distinguishing property between "<" and "≤" that you were probably thinking of is antisymmetry, which "<" fails, but "≤" satisfies, thus making the latter, but not the former a partial order. In fact , of course, "≤" is the archetypical partial order, hence the symbol "≤" is often used to represent any partial order, much like "~" is used to represent any equivalence relation. So there is that connection as well. Paul August ☎ 15:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Relation notation 

message: * "Recent research in the history of mathematics has shed light on the mathematical suppositions Einstein brought to the formulation of the relativity of simultaneity ..." etc. -- it doesn't look completely incoherent and gives sort of some sources, nevertheless I'm sceptical. Comments? --Pjacobi 18:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone had made word-for-word the same edit in general relativity, which I promptly removed.  Its applicability to GR was even more dubious than its presence in the relativity of simultaneity.  Silly rabbit 14:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've now seen it at History of special relativity too -- that just didn't look right. So I'll take it out and direct further discussion to Talk:History of special relativity#Connection with set theory?. --Pjacobi 16:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange edit at [[Relativity of simultaneity]] 

message: Hello. The categorization taskforce is trying to find WikiProjects interested in using the bot of Alai to identify mathematics stub articles which do not currently have a category (besides the stub category of course). If the project is interested, we could create something like :Category:Uncategorized mathematics stubs which could then be categorized by people knowledgeable in the subject, thus reducing the risk of improper categorization. Please let us know on the taskforce's talk page if you're interested. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 00:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An invitation to categorize uncategorized math stubs 

message: I have proposed renaming :Category:Complex systems as :Category:Complex systems (science).  Here is my justification for the rename:
:I previously nominated this for deletion on 13 April 2007, mainly because it was being used to categorize anything that could be described as "complex" and a "system" by the average Wikipedia user (such as "role-playing game systems").  This actually seemed to categorize things by name rather than categorize things that were related to each other.  Following the nomination, several people familiar with the scientific field of complex systems explained that the field deserved a category and cleaned out the category.  However, the category is still at risk for being used to list anything that could be described as "complex" and a "system", and it would be good to have the category focus speficially on the field of complex systems itself rather than gathering together everything that could be called a system (like the deleted :Category:Systems, which was deleted following a 12 April 2007 discussion; see User:Jpbowen/Back up - Category Systems).  After a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Mathematics, a couple of people suggested renaming this as :Complex systems (science), which I now recommend as the new name for this category. Dr. Submillimeter 18:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I don't have a strong view on the rename, I originally suggested :Complex systems (science) as an alternative to :Complex systems studies. A better suggestion has now been made: :Complex systems theory. I think this choice avoids most of the drawbacks of the rename (it seems to me to be as harmless as the distinction between relativity and relativity theory), while retaining the benefits. Comments can be added here. Geometry guy 11:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Complex systems nominated for renaming 

message: Mathematical landscape has been nominated for deletion.  Comment as you see fit!  Anville 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD:  [[Mathematical landscape]] 

message: Umm, hi, 
This is surely off-topic here, but I'm hoping that people here would be kind enough to evaluate Equipartition theorem, which is a Featured Article candidate now.  It's at the level of basic multivariable calculus, although there is a multidimensional integration by parts at one step of the derivation.  Does the article read OK to you all?  Any suggestions for improvements?  Thanks ever so much for your time and trouble, Willow 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC of Equipartition theorem? 

message: There is now only the mathematicians page left to automate, so I have been looking at it again. There is in fact an obvious way to sort mathematicians by year: just make the table(s) "sortable". This can be automated using /Dates subpages giving the lifetime of the mathematician. Together with a couple of categories, such as :Category:BCE mathematians and :Category:First millenium mathematicians, sortable tables can easily be produced by transcluding these subpages. Such tables have the additional advantage that the tables can be sorted by importance or quality by clicking on the links provided by the sortable format.
It would be nice to be able to sort the table(s) also by name. One way to do this would be to introduce additional /SortName subpages, which give a sortable form of the mathematicians name (e.g. "Fermat, Pierre de" for Pierre de Fermat).
The creation of /Dates and /SortName subpages from the current page can probably be done using AWB (alas, I still don't have the expertise for this). However, there is another more subtle issue: at present the mathematicians page provides an additional "field" column, which lists the expertise and contributions of a mathematician, in addition to any comments on the quality of the article. This can partially be covered by the /Comments subpage. However, I think it might be useful to transclude another page containing the expertise and contribution information.
Many of these list entries describe the field(s) in which the mathematician contributed. This makes me wonder whether we should replace the "field = mathematicians" tag by a "mathematician = yes" tag, so the field is still free (for the primary field in which the mathematician contributed). One advantage of this would be the possibility to sort mathematicians by field. The mathematicians could then also be listed on the relevant field pages, although it is not obvious that this is necessarily a good thing, so please add comments! Geometry guy 19:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematicians by year: a proposed way forward and some questions

message: :Category:Mathematicians by religion nominated for deletion before I could get to doing it.  (Ask me about Slovenia!)  Please go comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 29.  Dr. Submillimeter 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Mathematicians by religion]] nominated for deletion 

message: I have edited the source of this page to ask User:MiszaBot II to automatically archive it.  If any errors occur, please remove the template from the very top of this page's source code. The cutoff is currently set for 7 days, and the bot appears to run at 6:35 and 18:35 UTC each day.  CMummert · talk 13:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated archiving 

message: There is an ongoing opinion poll at Talk:Ring (mathematics)#Poll on unit requirement as to whether or not the rings on Wikipedia should be defined to unital or not. Opinions welcome. -- Fropuff 04:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unital ring poll