Revision as of 18:24, 7 January 2013 editMichael Hardy (talk | contribs)Administrators210,279 edits →Trace inequalities: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:26, 7 January 2013 edit undoMichael Hardy (talk | contribs)Administrators210,279 edits →Proved or provenNext edit → | ||
Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
:::Not that I am aware of. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 19:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | :::Not that I am aware of. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 19:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
I think I tend to use "proven" only as an attributive adjective, and maybe not always then. As a past participle, I use "proved". Maybe this will go where "gotten" has gone in England, i.e. it's no longer used by respectable writers, and the ignorant masses there seem to think it's an Americanism. ] (]) 18:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Trace inequalities == | == Trace inequalities == |
Revision as of 18:26, 7 January 2013
This is a discussion page for WikiProject Mathematics |
|
Please add new topics at the bottom of the page and sign your posts. |
view · edit Frequently asked questions
To view an explanation to the answer, click on the link to the right of the question. Are Misplaced Pages's mathematics articles targeted at professional mathematicians? No, we target our articles at an appropriate audience. Usually this is an interested layman. However, this is not always possible. Some advanced topics require substantial mathematical background to understand. This is no different from other specialized fields such as law and medical science. If you believe that an article is too advanced, please leave a detailed comment on the article's talk page. If you understand the article and believe you can make it simpler, you are also welcome to improve it, in the framework of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Why is it so difficult to learn mathematics from Misplaced Pages articles? Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a textbook. Misplaced Pages articles are not supposed to be pedagogic treatments of their topics. Readers who are interested in learning a subject should consult a textbook listed in the article's references. If the article does not have references, ask for some on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Mathematics. Misplaced Pages's sister projects Wikibooks which hosts textbooks, and Wikiversity which hosts collaborative learning projects, may be additional resources to consider.See also: Using Misplaced Pages for mathematics self-study Why are Misplaced Pages mathematics articles so abstract? Abstraction is a fundamental part of mathematics. Even the concept of a number is an abstraction. Comprehensive articles may be forced to use abstract language because that language is the only language available to give a correct and thorough description of their topic. Because of this, some parts of some articles may not be accessible to readers without a lot of mathematical background. If you believe that an article is overly abstract, then please leave a detailed comment on the talk page. If you can provide a more down-to-earth exposition, then you are welcome to add that to the article. Why don't Misplaced Pages's mathematics articles define or link all of the terms they use? Sometimes editors leave out definitions or links that they believe will distract the reader. If you believe that a mathematics article would be more clear with an additional definition or link, please add to the article. If you are not able to do so yourself, ask for assistance on the article's talk page. Why don't many mathematics articles start with a definition? We try to make mathematics articles as accessible to the largest likely audience as possible. In order to achieve this, often an intuitive explanation of something precedes a rigorous definition. The first few paragraphs of an article (called the lead) are supposed to provide an accessible summary of the article appropriate to the target audience. Depending on the target audience, it may or may not be appropriate to include any formal details in the lead, and these are often put into a dedicated section of the article. If you believe that the article would benefit from having more formal details in the lead, please add them or discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Why don't mathematics articles include lists of prerequisites? A well-written article should establish its context well enough that it does not need a separate list of prerequisites. Furthermore, directly addressing the reader breaks Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic tone. If you are unable to determine an article's context and prerequisites, please ask for help on the talk page. Why are Misplaced Pages's mathematics articles so hard to read? We strive to make our articles comprehensive, technically correct and easy to read. Sometimes it is difficult to achieve all three. If you have trouble understanding an article, please post a specific question on the article's talk page. Why don't math pages rely more on helpful YouTube videos and media coverage of mathematical issues? Mathematical content of YouTube videos is often unreliable (though some may be useful for pedagogical purposes rather than as references). Media reports are typically sensationalistic. This is why they are generally avoided. |
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Mathematics and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used
Binary numeral system/Binary number system
In this edit, User:Apteva moved Binary numeral system to Binary number system. The edit summary mentions what I surmise may be Google hits. I think if an error is widespread, a Misplaced Pages article might help correct it. Students often write
when they ought to write
If we found that error to be as widespread on the web (and I suspect it's out there in lots of places) as it is in turned-in homework assignments, would we follow the erroneous usage here?
(We had an article titled Number system that carried a hatnote saying that it is not about numeral systems. On March 17, 2012, User:Mlm42 redirected that to Number, and the redirect remains intact. We put a lot of work into finding links to number system that ought to link to numeral system, and there don't seem to be any of those now.) Michael Hardy (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly agree that "numeral" is correct. Is the right approach to find textbooks, articles, etc. that use "numeral", and then to redirect the "number" article to the "numeral" article? Mgnbar (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Binary numbering system is used far more commonly in books than binary numeral system. There is only one article. The discussion is on what it should be called. Binary number system is the most common term used. Correct to one particular post-doc or mathematics professor is not important. What is important is what is most commonly used. Apteva (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- From the dictionary: wikt:numeral; noun 1. a word, letter, symbol, or figure, etc., expressing a number; number: the Roman numerals. Apteva (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- The policy on common names says that the title should agree with the most common use in reliable sources. I find that a Google Scholar search on "binary number system" turns up 4150 results as opposed to 391 for "binary numeral system". Of course, search results depend a lot on the choice of search string. Michael Hardy, what is your source for saying that "binary numeral system" is correct and "binary number system" isn't? RockMagnetist (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly agree that "numeral" is correct. Is the right approach to find textbooks, articles, etc. that use "numeral", and then to redirect the "number" article to the "numeral" article? Mgnbar (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Relatedly, what is the point of including "system" in the title? Why isn't it just binary number (or binary numeral, both currently redirects)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs) 20:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I can answer the question as to the source - it is 20 years of studying mathematics and having a PhD in Mathematics. A number is only a number. A numbering system is the mathematics used for calculation using that particular base. Apteva (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you have explained the difference between a numeral and a numeral system, but you haven't answered my question. I didn't ask "what is a numeral system", I asked why the title should be about the more complex object (the system) rather than about the simpler objects (the numerals). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Are you answering my question on sources for yourself or Michael Hardy? Personal qualifications are not relevant to Misplaced Pages policy. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Subject experts are often needed and are always welcome. Apteva (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely - but citations are still needed (and subject experts should be good at finding them). RockMagnetist (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- So I would choose the title "base 2" though, except that it is not "encyclopedic". Apteva (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- You should choose something comparable like binary number compared to base 2 number compared to base two number as in where you see binary number is a clear winner. Base 2 does not identify the topic well. Dmcq (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- So I would choose the title "base 2" though, except that it is not "encyclopedic". Apteva (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely - but citations are still needed (and subject experts should be good at finding them). RockMagnetist (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- Subject experts are often needed and are always welcome. Apteva (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- I can answer the question as to the source - it is 20 years of studying mathematics and having a PhD in Mathematics. A number is only a number. A numbering system is the mathematics used for calculation using that particular base. Apteva (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- See Talk:Binary numeral system#Requested move. Apteva (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
"Number system" is a misnomer, as shown by the dictionary definitions quoted by Apteva: a word, letter, symbol, or figure, etc., expressing a number. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Lots of things are misnomers. So many that we even have a list of mathematical misnomers. But if they're in wide enough use, that's what we should call them anyway. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- That depends on how firmly entrenched it is. "Fundamental theorem of algebra" may be beyond hope, but in certain matters we can correct popular misunderstandings. For example, mathematical illiterates think "exponential growth" is synonymous with something like "surprisingly fast growth". Our article with that title sets the record straight. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- The article Number makes a clear distinction between "number" and "numeral". Moreover we have Numeral system. On the other hand, formally speaking, a "binary number" or "binary fraction" is a rational number with a power of two as a denominator. Thus, the correct title of the article would be "binary numeral system" (or "binary numeration" if one want to avoid "system"). Personally, I prefer "binary numeral system", but, if we want to name after the most common use, and if we decide the most common use after the number of Google hits, "binary number system" seems the best choice. D.Lazard (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think trying to use numeral in places where it is very uncommon in normal usage is just wrong in Misplaced Pages - we should use common language.. Decimal numeral for instance hardly ever occurs compared to decimal number, and it has been that way for the last two centuries at least according to in Google ngrams. Numerals normally refers to the numbers as written using the symbols of different writing systems like Babylonian or Roman or the digits in our current system, not how they are put together. Dmcq (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- The article Number makes a clear distinction between "number" and "numeral". Moreover we have Numeral system. On the other hand, formally speaking, a "binary number" or "binary fraction" is a rational number with a power of two as a denominator. Thus, the correct title of the article would be "binary numeral system" (or "binary numeration" if one want to avoid "system"). Personally, I prefer "binary numeral system", but, if we want to name after the most common use, and if we decide the most common use after the number of Google hits, "binary number system" seems the best choice. D.Lazard (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- Actually "Number system" is not a misnomer. Michael Hardy has committed the fallacy of affirming a disjunct. In the OED, one of the definitions of number is "Something which graphically or symbolically represents a numerical quantity, as a word, figure, or group of these; a numeral; (also) a ticket or label bearing such signs." Thus, although "Number system" is less precise, it is a synonym for "Numeral system". RockMagnetist (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- What the word "number" means may vary with the context. In some contexts a "number" is a _song_. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a misnomer if used that way in most math articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The requested move has now been closed and the article moved to binary number. Probably it would be a good idea to edit the article (and especially its lead section) to discuss common usage vs correct usage here, and also to say what a single binary number is as well as what the whole system is. I suppose one advantage of the new title (not included in the discussion) is that it doesn't use the phrase "number system" so we can still use the more precise "numeral system" terminology for that while also using "binary numbers" to refer to numbers represented using this system. (Relatedly, a binary numeral is just a bit, not a multi-bit number, right? So why does it redirect here and not to bit?) —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Bit" means "binary digit". A numeral is not necessarily just one digit, it can be multiple digits. So "binary numeral" is not limited to one bit. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- As an interested layman, I would expect the term "numeral" to refer to a typographic arrangement comprising one or more symbols, while a "number" is a mathematical idea which may be represented by the numeral. In practice, the numeral for a given number is also commonly referred to as the "number". For example in the decimal numbering system, I might write "6" where an ancient Roman would have written "VI". In binary I would write "110". Here are three different numerals representing the same number, and all commonly referred to (in their respective spoken languages) as "the number six". I'd suggest that provided we understand that the term "number..." is often used as shorthand for "the number represented by the numeral...", there should be no problem. For example WP:COMMONSENSE tells us that "No. 10 Acacia Avenue" is using the number/numeral as the name of a property. I'd also agree that we are well rid of the term "system" in the title. I don't know if that helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, but the binary system is most frequently used in contexts which have very little to do with systems of writing — in computers. Are those numbers or numerals? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest that since most patterns of information within an electrical circuit are not typographic arrangements then they cannot be numerals. But equally, they are only representations of the mathematical idea of the number, not the idea itself (I certainly find it hard to believe they might be sets of sets, for example). It would seem that, whatever the precise mathematical definition of a number, linguistically we use the term to cover a multitude of sins, without full regard to consistency. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- To Eppstein: Do you really mean that the common use of the binary system in computers is not a system of writing the numbers in the memory? What is the significant difference between writing on a paper sheet and writing in the memory of a computer? On the other hand one of the side advantages of computers is that the common use of several numeral systems (decimal, binary, floating point, ...) may help to clarify the important distinction between the abstract notion of a number and its representation as a numeral that has been perfectly summarized by Steelpillow. D.Lazard (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is a representation that is intended for calculation rather than for visual communication. In that sense it is more similar to a configuration of an abacus than to a sequence of written digits. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- To Eppstein: Do you really mean that the common use of the binary system in computers is not a system of writing the numbers in the memory? What is the significant difference between writing on a paper sheet and writing in the memory of a computer? On the other hand one of the side advantages of computers is that the common use of several numeral systems (decimal, binary, floating point, ...) may help to clarify the important distinction between the abstract notion of a number and its representation as a numeral that has been perfectly summarized by Steelpillow. D.Lazard (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest that since most patterns of information within an electrical circuit are not typographic arrangements then they cannot be numerals. But equally, they are only representations of the mathematical idea of the number, not the idea itself (I certainly find it hard to believe they might be sets of sets, for example). It would seem that, whatever the precise mathematical definition of a number, linguistically we use the term to cover a multitude of sins, without full regard to consistency. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, but the binary system is most frequently used in contexts which have very little to do with systems of writing — in computers. Are those numbers or numerals? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- As an interested layman, I would expect the term "numeral" to refer to a typographic arrangement comprising one or more symbols, while a "number" is a mathematical idea which may be represented by the numeral. In practice, the numeral for a given number is also commonly referred to as the "number". For example in the decimal numbering system, I might write "6" where an ancient Roman would have written "VI". In binary I would write "110". Here are three different numerals representing the same number, and all commonly referred to (in their respective spoken languages) as "the number six". I'd suggest that provided we understand that the term "number..." is often used as shorthand for "the number represented by the numeral...", there should be no problem. For example WP:COMMONSENSE tells us that "No. 10 Acacia Avenue" is using the number/numeral as the name of a property. I'd also agree that we are well rid of the term "system" in the title. I don't know if that helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
QUOTE from David Eppstein: "Relatedly, a binary numeral is just a bit, not a multi-bit number, right?" END OF QUOTE.
No, a binary numeral can have more than one binary digit, just as a decimal numeral can have more than one decimal digit. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I have to admit, I still find the way you're making this distinction between numbers and numerals to be confusing. If it were "a number is an abstract mathematical object and a numeral is a written representation of a number" then fine, that would make sense to me, but then binary numbers would be numbers to me and not numerals. Because, binary numbers are abstract mathematical objects (sequences of bits) that are not primarily used as a system of writing, and that have an arithmetic that obeys the Peano axioms and other properties that one would expect integers to have. It is as if you defined a vector in a way that required it to only be an object in a coordinate-free vector space, but insisted on calling it a "vectroid" whenever it was given coordinates in a space with a basis. I don't see that as being a useful distinction. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Fractions
Why are fractions hard to most people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.148.82 (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- That question is better suited to the Reference desk. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. This page is for discussions of editing and organizing Misplaced Pages's mathematics articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Article listed for deletion
Warning that you'd be coming has been given. You have your choice of logic and philosophy textbooks by professors to cite. Feel free to mention the examples from Aquinas, Aristotle, and Locke if you want to get into the philosophy in addition to the logic. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gyula J. Obádovics could use additional input. Tkuvho (talk) 09:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Missing eponym in Blancmange curve
In Blancmange curve, there is a mention of the "Takagi–Landsberg curve" (a generalization that includes the blancmange curve). The same name does appear in a few publications such as this one, but I haven't found out who Landsberg is/was or what connection he/she has with the curve. Any suggestions? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Never mind, I found it from a reference in one of Mandelbrot's books. It's Georg Landsberg — new article created. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Images by User:Aughost
Can some other editors look at the contributions of Aughost (talk · contribs). They recently consist of adding images to articles which have numerous problems; they are usually too large, generally too complex so need overlong captions (which are also unclear), and often only marginally related to the article. Some can be fixed with better sizing, comments and placement but others should be removed. But some of my attempts to remedy this have been undone, , , and as it's across multiple articles I thought It's best discussed somewhere centrally.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 17:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, shows evidence of warring on several pages including stellation, Regular polyhedron, Golden ratio and probably more. You have posted on their talk page, I have added my own comment there, so if that doesn't work I guess an Admin will need to get dragged in. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- In connection with this editor (or someone indistinguishable from him) please see also Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/12/Category:Pythagorean tiling. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I had a look at and there are a few which are okay but in general they seem unnecessarily complex and messy. I guess Baelde must be the same as Aughost - don't know why they use two different names. If they are actually warring to shove the images in that's bad and a great pity. I hope there is the possibility for helping the person perhaps make things simpler and try and look at things from other peoples' point of view. Dmcq (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Possible useful information
This alleges to be novel and useful. If it truly is novel, then Misplaced Pages is the wrong place for it, as per Misplaced Pages:Original Research; however, I only have a passing familiarity with the subject at hand, and so can't really judge if this is actually novel, or just a restatement of something we already have, or possibly a restatement of something we don't have but should. There's also the question of, if it is novel, is it actually useful? (I frankly doubt it, but as I said, I'm not fit to judge this). Thoughts? DS (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- This might be novel as announced but wiki coverage would have to wait until Italia, Peter actually publishes his discoveries in a reliable venue. Unpublished manuscripts cannot be covered in wiki. Tkuvho (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be a restatement of some already well-known procedure for numerical integration. Indeed, one would expect it not to be, since this method relies on being able to differentiate the function which is generally much less numerically robust than integration. It's doubtful that one can prove any good error estimates using the proposed method. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
RfC at WikiProject Numbers
There is currently a Request for Comment here, which is discussing how much non-mathematical material belongs in articles about numbers. Please contribute your ideas. -- YPNYPN ✡ 16:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
List of things named after Johannes Kepler
List of things named after Johannes Kepler is a new article. It should get divided into appropriate sections. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Multiplication algorithm
I would appreciate it if someone could give a third opinion on this addition.—Emil J. 16:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Even if it were notable, and I don't believe it is, that article would be the wrong place. Something like the Mental calculation article would be more suitable. Dmcq (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Perimeter: review wished
Hello,
I'm trying to translate French good article fr:Périmètre into English (see Perimeter, work in progress). As English is not my native tongue, a review may be useful, to correct my mistakes.
All the sources in fr:Périmètre are in French, so I didn't insert them in the English article, thinking we could find other ones in English. Did I do well? If you prefer, I can easily copy and paste French sources in Perimeter. --El Caro (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Mathematician biography nominated for deletion
It won't get automatically listed by the 'bot. Uncle G (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Proved or proven
Is "proved" or "proven" the preferred usage for mathematics articles? It seems that "proved" is more common in specifically mathematical contexts, but another editor has suggested this is a British/American difference. Is there an established convention? Deltahedron (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is no solid convention in mathematics, and both terms are commonly used. I would just treat them as synonyms and leave the original use unless it sounds particularly bad. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, but my question was specifically about whether there was a convention here on Misplaced Pages. Deltahedron (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not that I am aware of. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I think I tend to use "proven" only as an attributive adjective, and maybe not always then. As a past participle, I use "proved". Maybe this will go where "gotten" has gone in England, i.e. it's no longer used by respectable writers, and the ignorant masses there seem to think it's an Americanism. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Trace inequalities
Trace inequalities is a new article and could probably benefit from more eyeballs. In particular: Which other articles should link to it? (I've added a few links including one from the list of inequalities, but I haven't attempted to figure out which others there should be.) Michael Hardy (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)