Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Mathematics: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:55, 3 July 2012 editQuondum (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users36,986 edits →Hodge Dual: GA might be a good point to start← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:37, 9 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,696 editsm Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2024/Dec) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject mathematics tabs}}
{|class="messagebox standard-talk" id="WPMheader"
{{end tab}}
|-http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_15#Category:Logical_syntax
{{Talk header|sc1=WT:WPM|sc2=WT:WPMATH}}
|align="center" style="font-weight: bold; line-height: 125%"|<div style="float:left;">]</div>This is a discussion page for <br/>]
{{FAQ}}
|-
{{WikiProject banner shell|
| style="padding-top: 6pt; border-top: 1pt solid #c0c090;"|
{{WikiProject Mathematics}}
<center>This page is devoted to discussions of issues relating to mathematics articles on Misplaced Pages. Related discussion pages include:</center>
{{columns-list|3|
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
}} }}
{{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics/archivelist}}
|-
|align="center" style="font-size: small; padding-top: 6pt; border-top: 1pt solid #c0c090"|Please and ].
|}
{{FAQ}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics/archivelist}}
|algo = old(15d) |algo = old(15d)
|archiveheader = {{WikiProject Mathematics archive list}}
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthnameshort)s |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthnameshort)s
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot II |age=15 |units=days }}
{{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used|link=Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2011-02-21/WikiProject report|writer=]|day=21|month=February|year=2011}}
{{-}}
{|
|-valign=top
|
__TOC__
|
{{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics/archivelist}}
<!-- {{shortcut|]}} This is now in the archivelist -->
|-
|}

== Suggested FA drive topic: ] ==

* Don't know if you folks do FA drives, but I ran across a bio of ] on the Internet, and have claimed him as a hero.&ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 09:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
::Good luck with that — biographies tend to be easier than technical articles for getting though FA, and having a goal like this makes it easier to find improvements to make. But that one needs some effort to get into shape — for one thing, it doesn't even have a section describing his scholarly contributions and their impact. —] (]) 16:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
:::...and it kinda has a faint copyvio-ish odor as well, though I haven't scrutinized it carefully. i don't actually have time to work on it, right now.. posted this hoping others might see it as a worthy task. But... a few months from now, I will probably have time. We'll see. Tks! &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 02:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

== Mathematical language must be precise ==

I suspect that I will need help in a project I am about to undertake. Several articles use the term "evenly divisible" to mean "divisible" which is okay in a non-technical article but not okay in mathematics (it would be like calling 1 a prime number for instance). What bothers me isn't that editors would use this word but that they react with hostility when I attempt to change it - some people feel like they "own the article".

The first resistance I met was in the Y2K article: . One of them suggested that I use "exactly divisible" which is not preferred but I am prepared to compromise this way. I also got reverted on Fermat's Little Theorem . This article relates to number theory so I will not compromise here. Since I am talking to other mathematicians (I hope), maybe some of you could weigh in on the edit wars I post here. ] (]) 03:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

:The phrase "edit wars" should ring warning bells. You've posted two links to pages where ''you have started an edit war''. It's not something to be proud of.
:In most contexts, "evenly divisible" means the same as "divisible". The choice of one or the other is just a matter of taste. Personally I prefer "divisible" for mathematics articles such as ], but see no reason to delete "evenly" from non-technical pages such as ]. That's only my personal opinion; I doubt that there will be a strong consensus either way. I hope that any further discussion of the topic will remain ]. In particular, public declarations that you refuse to compromise won't go down well on this site. ] (]) 05:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

::We agree on what terminology should be used in ''mathematics'' articles :). It seems like we don't agree on what it means to start an edit war - I cited two sources for why my edit made the page better... the people who reverted the change (which even to a non-mathematician should be inconsequential) did not.
::Compromise was too strong a word; here's what I meant. A part that worries me is that people seemed to genuinely believe that the standard definition of divisibility allowed 3 to be divisible by 2. I am willing to be civil and take the time to calmly explain why I think they are wrong. But I would not admit that they are right anymore than I would admit that a person saying 1 + 1 = 3 is right. ] (]) 06:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
:::There should be something in articles for people who aren't familiar with the stuff but could cope with part of it straightforwardly. The articles are not just compendiums of knowledge, there is a relationship to the people who want to find the stuff. If knowledge is not accessible except to those who already know it then there is zero information in them. As to exactly divisible in an article aimed at a pretty low level that is good. They have spent time at school being drilled into figuring out what seven divided by three is. There is no point paring the language down to the bare essentials and leaving a beautiful struucture that only a mathematician will appreciate. ] (]) 08:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
:::: ''Exactly divisible'' is probably better than ''evenly divisible'', because the latter could conceivably be read as implying that the quotient is an even number. --] (]) 08:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Good point, more words means more ways to get the wrong meaning ;-) Divisible with no qualification can often be better. I reacted badly to the title 'Mathematical language must be precise' which implied unreadable articles to me. ] (]) 08:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, a good way to avoid any ambiguity could be to replace "be divisible by" by "be a multiple of". Personally, I find that "year multiple of 100" sounds better than "year divisible by 100", together with avoiding any ambiguity. ] (]) 09:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Multiple of" has the same problem as "divisible"; a non-mathematician might think it could be a non-integer multiple. This could be a particular problem in calendar-related articles, because there are a lot of cranks running around in that subject area who are pushing some version of calendar reform, or pushing some calendar on religious grounds. Such cranks like to seize on ambiguities, both by making arguments within Misplaced Pages, and basing arguments in other fora on Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 12:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


I think D. Lazard's suggestion to use (integer) multiple is good. Another possiblity is a footnote that says *here, and generally in number theory, "divisible" means "divisible without a remainder".

I don't have a source in front of me, but IIRC Richard Feynmann said (paraphrasing) "of course, 5 is divisible by 2." If someone is unfamilar with number theory and its conventions, restricting numbers to be integers may take a bit of getting used to.

In the original post, Connor Behan said
<blockquote>
... Several articles use the term "evenly divisible" to mean "divisible" which is okay in a non-technical article but not okay in mathematics (it would be like calling 1 a prime number for instance).
</blockquote>
I disagree. Calling 1 prime is unambiguously wrong (even though Gauss did so sometimes). Saying "exactly" or "evenly divisible", or "divisible without a remainder", or "an (integer) multiple" of is at worst a bit wordy, and may be clearer to Misplaced Pages's intended audience. Saying "exactly divisible" the first time or two in an article, and then quietly dropping the abverb, seems clearest to me.

] (]) 12:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

:I disagree that "saying 'exactly divisible' the first time or two in an article, and then quietly dropping the abverb, seems clearest". This approach works well in general writing: "Finnias Tiberius Flubberbuster III of Green Meadow, Wyoming...Mr Flubberbuster...." But in formulas or when writing rules or other legalistic text, any variation in wording often implies a difference in meaning. A reader who has just finished reading several articles, in Misplaced Pages and elsewhere, about the differences between the Gregorian, Revised Julian, and Julian calendar is apt to be thinking in a mode characteristic of legal scholars or computer programmers, and immediately assume that if the words "divisible" and "evenly divisible" occur in the same document, they must have different meanings. ] (]) 16:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "exactly divisible" is an improvement over "evenly divisible". A person who hasn't been trained to think that "divisible" applies the quotient of two integers is an integer may think "exactly divisible" means the result is a rational number as opposed to an irrational number.

: Is there any evidence whatsoever that any speaker of English has been confused by either of the terms "evenly divisible" or "exactly divisible"? These are long-standing parts of standard English usage; "evenly divisible" has had a page for 7 years. Language is inherently somewhat vague, but this is the least-convincing example of this problem I've ever seen brought up on Misplaced Pages. As long as no one demands that we being using "is an aliquot part of", though, I'll be okay. --] (]) 16:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

::I've never seen the phrase "exactly divisible" before. In the contexts where it's being suggested for use, I already know what it's supposed to mean. I don't know what I would make of it in an unfamiliar context. ] (]) 17:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Maybe I'll repeat myself, but, IMO, "divisible" should be avoided when it may be easily replaced by "multiple". A mathematical reason is that multiplication is defined prior to division, and it is always better, when reasonable, to use the most basic definitions. But the main reason is that "divisible" may be ambiguous inside mathematics (divisibility inside the integers vs inside the rationals) as well as outside mathematics. Here is an example, which is not far from ] article:
Every year is (exactly, evenly) divisible by four into four quarters, but year 2001 is not divisible by four.
:::] (]) 17:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

::::I suggest that you-all just use the word "divisible" and attach a footnote the first time it is used in an article, saying "In number theory, ''divisible'' means with an integer quotient and no remainder.". ] (]) 17:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::Footnotes are generally a very bad idea for this sort of thing. As a general comment, this entire issue seems to be trying to find a solution for a non-problem. It is generally clear from the context what "divisible" means. If not, then the editor should try to make it clearer using his or her best judgement. There's simply no need as I see it to mandate any particular one size fits all solution. ] (]) 18:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::Could you elaborate on why footnotes are a bad idea? I thought the footnote idea sounded pretty good until I read your comment. After all ] and ] do a similar thing but in parentheses. ] (]) 20:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Footnotes in Misplaced Pages are generally reserved for providing references. Mandating a solution that conflicts with this basic use is a bad idea. Add to that the fact that footnotes encourage unclear writing, and more difficult reading. ] (]) 21:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
::Evidence that "evenly divisible" can be misinterpreted is , , , , , and which took me a few minutes to find on Google. ] (]) 20:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Meanwhile, the same five minutes spent would have led you to believe that it's also completely unreasonable to use "is divisible by", since this seems to cause endless confusion: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]etc. I particularly like </nowiki>], in which it is explained that "Divisible in math terms means capable of being evenly divided, without remainder." Meanwhile, the same test proves that "multiple" is also unusable: </nowiki>] </nowiki>] </nowiki>]. (Actually this exercise leads me to believe that "integer multiple" is the best way to go -- multiple does seem to cause fewer problems than any version with "divisible".) Language has a little bit of ambiguity in it, always; replacing "evenly divisible" with "divisible" removes none of the ambiguity at all. --] (]) 21:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Your evidence for "divisible" and "evenly divisible" being equally ambiguous is not very convincing. In the links you posted, people are simply asking what "divisible" means, possibly because it's a word they've never seen before - like "ecclesiastical". In the links I posted, people demonstrate proficiency in English and mathematics and still seek clarification on the word "evenly divisible" because they think it is ambiguous on mathematical grounds. However, I agree that "integer multiple" is better than either of them. ] (]) 21:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::In any event, none of these links either way seem to be to Misplaced Pages discussions, so I don't think they have much weight in this matter. ] (]) 13:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Input from editors who describe themselves as able to contribute to Misplaced Pages with an intermediate level of proficiency in English, like D.Lazard, is quite helpful. I hope there will be comments from editors who are native speakers of a few different varieties of English, and who attended elementary schools during different decades. Most of us learned such basic words in elementary schools, but those schools have a nasty habit of introducing new terminology to new generations. (I never heard of cursive writing while I was in school, even though I learned to do it. Now the converse is becoming true; they're taught the word "cursive" but not how to do it.)

As for the example "Every year is (exactly, evenly) divisible by four into four quarters, but year 2001 is not divisible by four", neither Julian nor Gregorian calendar years, whether common or leap, can be divided into four quarters each of which contains the same number of whole days. So I don't understand the purpose of the example. ] (]) 18:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

:"Evenly divisible" is standard English for divisible with no remainder, supported by a wide variety of sources: dictionaries, textbooks, encyclopedias, and general usage. There is nothing imprecise about it. The adverb "evenly" does not refer to multiples of two in this usage--indeed it's the other way around: "even," as in an even number, means the number can be evenly divided in half. It is common in mathematical writing to just say "divisible" but this is an elliptical expression for "divisible with zero remainder" or just "evenly divisible." In ordinary english "divisible means "able to be divided." Implying "with no remainder" makes sense to mathematicians because ''any'' two non-zero numbers are "able to be divided" in fields. That's not so obvious to laypeople, so using the qualifier "even' is appropriate in articles likely to be read by them. Our guideline ] says to "write one level down" and "avoid overly technical language." That seems appropriate guidance here.--] (]) 19:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
::I think I'm taking from all this that saying abc is a multiple of 4 is better than saying abc is /evenly/exactly// divisible by 4. ] (]) 20:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
::: Surely you need to say "is an integer multiple of 4" in order to actually remove the ambiguity? --] (]) 21:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

::But is it appropriate guidance for an article about mathematics? You seem to be saying that a word cannot be imprecise for a specialized field if it is common English. There are many examples against this; "brontosaurus", "generally", "decelerate", "accuracy / precision" and "countable" to name a few. Another argument is that sticking to one phrase or the other would make Misplaced Pages more consistent. Even before I started changing articles, a search for "divisible" turned up 1100 articles while a search for "evenly divisible" turned up 90 articles. ] (]) 20:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

:::I'm not quite sure what Connor Behan is getting at, but a word may be used in a specialized way if any reader with a hope of reading the article would understand that the specialized meaning applied. For example, an advanced physics article could use the word "force" without explicitly stating it is the vector that results from multiplying the scalar mass by the vector acceleration. There would be no need to mention that the meaning "a group of soldiers" does not apply. But some of the articles that have been edited, such as calendar articles, are <u>not</u> primarily math articles.

:::I agree with others who endorse "integer multiple", but wikilink integer because I've taught some high school and middle school, and guarantee that some of these students are unfamiliar with the word "integer". ] (]) 21:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC) corrected 22:30 UTC.

::::There are words and phrases in ordinary English that are ambiguous in a technical context. "Evenly divisible" isn't one of them. It has only one meaning, divisible with no remainder, and is widley understood by lay people and specialists alike. "Integer multiple," on the other hand, is technical jargon, never used in ordinary speech. The mere fact that you suggest wikilinking "integer" makes my point. Every published explanation of "leap year" I have found uses the term "evenly divisible." Sources are king here. We should not be replacing a commonly understood, unambiguous term with jargon just to solve a problem that does not exist in the first place.--] (]) 13:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::Here is one counter example of a person, that had never heard the phrase "evenly divisible" before it turned up here. "Integer multiple" is a perfectly fine common English phrase.]] 15:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::: The fact that you haven't heard the phrase "evenly divisible" is not a disproof of the (true) statement that it is widely understood. Any of the terms under discussion is understandable with 2 minutes on google; I agree with agr that "integer multiple" will be a less familiar phrase to most people than "evenly divisible". --] (]) 15:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

::::: Can we at least agree, agr, that integer multiple is preferred in a ''mathematics'' article? I don't have time to track down ''published'' sources but I just looked at the first 10 results of a google search for "leap year" "divisible". "Evenly divisible" shows up 4 times, "divisible" shows up 5 times and "exactly divisible" shows up once. ] (]) 20:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

:::::: In a mathematics article, I would have thought "divisible" was fine, unless there was some specific reason for thinking it was not fine. ] (]) 22:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

::::: For those of you who still think "evenly divisible" is fine, I did a Google search for "oddly divisible" and got 5 pages of hits. This is not a lot but I would have expected zero hits if "evenly divisible" were universally understood. While I find "integer multiple" to be a suitable alternative, I suspect that these are the same people who think that 7 is divisible by 3. Maybe they wouldn't think this if Misplaced Pages pages used terminology that did not support this conclusion. We have an opportunity to educate people here. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::::: It's not accidental that you're the only person to have used the adverb "universally" so far -- none of "divisible", "evenly divisible", or "integer multiple" will be universally understood. The (true) claim is that "evenly divisible" is a common English phrase, and so in widely or commonly understood. --] (]) 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

== ... but not too "precise" ==

I looked at the article ] and saw an example of a pet peeve of mine: In the "generalizations" section is the formula
:<math>
\forall
a\in\mathbb{Z} :
\quad a^m
\equiv a^n
\pmod{p}
</math>.

A lot of people who know what is intended by "divisible" have never been exposed to logical <math>\forall\;</math> or set theory <math>\in\;</math> notation, much less have any idea what <math>\mathbb{Z}\;</math> is supposed to mean. It is, IMO, '''much''' better to say "for any integer ''a'' ...." or even "for any integer ''a'' (positive, negative, or zero) ..."

] (]) 12:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

: Yes, though this example would be bad form in basically any mathematics context. I've changed it. (Actually, it looks like someone more obsessive than I could make a whole bunch of the non-logic articles more readable simply by going through and replacing every instance of \forall with English words.) --] (]) 12:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

::The ] explicitly discourages using quantifier notation in mathematics articles. ] (]) 14:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Well I think that notation is fine if the entry level for the topic is university mathematics. That's definitely not true though for things like Fermats' little theorem! ] (]) 14:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
::::I don't think there is ever a situation where the writing is improved by using this notation. You never see it in research level mathematics, and almost never in university level mathematics writing, either graduate or undergraduate. ] (]) 15:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
:I think replacing the formula by text is a good idea here. BUT "any" should not be used as a quantifier in this context; it is too ambiguous. Use "every" instead. —] (]) 16:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
:: Yes, absolutely, neither "\forall" nor "any" should be used if they can be avoided. (And indeed the FlT article now reads "... for every ....") --] (]) 16:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

== Have you access to 'Prime curios' book? ==

If you have access to the book based on the prime curios website could you check it actually includes the coincidences mentioned in ] please in the putting in 999779999159200499899 and some business about changing from bases 2 and 3 to base 10. Thanks. ] (]) 16:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

== Zinbiel algebra ==

Some doubt has been cast over the validity of the redirect ]. Views from experts would be welcome. ] (]) 21:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

: What does the first sentence actually mean, and where can one find a discussion of the doubt that is being cast? (Incidentally, to save other users who, like me, don't see it immediately: "Zinbiel" = "co-Leibniz" = Leibniz written backwards. --] (]) 21:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
::Probably here : ]. ] (]) 22:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
:::Thanks. This is not my area of mathematics, but MathSciNet has 19 publications in which the title or review include the word "Zinbiel", by a variety of authors in several languages, dating to 2002. It looks completely legitimate to me. --] (]) 23:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
::::Note that both {{userlinks|South Jutland County}} and {{userlinks|G.W.Zinbiel}} (who created the article) are almost certainly sockpuppet accounts of the community-banned user Echigo mole/A.K.Nole. Please see ]. ] (]) 06:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

== Organizing (or "permuting"??) the ] ==

I've started to organize the ] into sections.
:
So far,
* Topics not yet classified into sections are at the beginning;
* A topic may appear in more than one section;
* But a topic not yet classified into one or more sections should appear only once (discuss!);
* Which section topics appear, and in what order (ha!!) they appear, and which should be sub-sections within main sections, are all debatable topics;
* There's a lot more work to do!!
:
] (]) 21:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

:: ...and ''now'' it's an organized list: everything is in a section or a subsection. Next step: the rest of you will figure out what could have been done better, and implement those ideas. ] (]) 20:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


== Please check Modular arithmetic ==
Here's how the table of contents looks so far:
: Contents
:
: 1 Particular kinds of permutations
: 2 Combinatorics of permutations
: 3 Permutation groups and other algebraic structures
:: 3.1 Groups
:: 3.2 Other algebraic structures
: 4 Mathematics applicable to physical sciences
: 5 Number theory
: 6 Algorithms and information processing
:: 6.1 Cryptography
: 7 Probability, stochastic processes, and statistics
:: 7.1 Random permutations
: 8 Music
: 9 Games
'''126''' items are currently in the list, by my quick count. ] (]) 20:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


Please check the recent edits to ] - I don't think that they are constructive. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yay! ] (]) 15:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


:If you are talking of the 3 last edits by a new editor (username in red), I reverted them before reading this post. ] (]) 09:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
== Urban myth about π? ==


:: Yes, thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
{{resolved}}
I remember hearing that somewhere in the number that a whole bunch of 8s show up either together or in a pattern. If this is not a myth would it be worth adding to the ] page?--] (]) 19:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
:No, because it has little to do with the computation of pi. Appropriate places are the final paragraph of ], or ], which already covers a sequence of six 8s, starting at position 222,299. --] ] 19:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
::I think it was an an episode of ]. I don't know if the writers made it up or actually did research on it. They may have made it up, as the plot had a couple that were trying to break the record. I do remember it as 8's though, unlike the 6s and 9s mentioned in the Feynman point article. I will resolve this section for now, and thank you for your help.--] (]) 19:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


== New publication of possible interest to project members ==
== Bell's theorem (again) ==


{{citation|title=''Princ-wiki-a mathematica'': Misplaced Pages editing and mathematics|first1=D.|last1=Eppstein|first2=J. B.|last2=Lewis|first3=Russ|last3=Woodroofe|author4=XOR'easter|journal=Notices of the AMS|volume=72|issue=1|pages=65–73|year=2025|url=https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202501/rnoti-p65.pdf}}. —] (]) 18:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Some more eyes on the current goings-on at ] would be appreciated. An editor there is insistent on rewriting the nutshell version of the theorem in the lead to one that is, in my mind, much less clear than what used to be there. An attempt has been made to engage the editor on ], but it has failed to attract sufficient interest. The editor in question is (apparently) convinced that, since there are two editors on the discussion page defending the old (consensus) revision, and one editor (himself) defending the new edit, that gives him the mandate to implement his edit. I've reverted him several times already, with edit summaries indicating ] and ], as well as menitioning these on the discussion page. ] (]) 21:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


:Nice work. Hopefully giving a balanced impression of what lies in store for editors attracts more potential contributions than it scares away. :-P –] ] 20:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I to your version and added a ref which supports the consensus version, also a few others in the "unreferenced" tagged sections. Hope this helps. ] ]] 23:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
:I've just finished reading it from beggining to end. Btw, I've noticed even articles about Fields Medalist can be stubby (e.g. ]). Yesterday I wondered if it was not because so few professional mathematicians participate in Misplaced Pages work. ] (]) 20:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::As an alternative guess, I suggest that biographies don't interest everyone. ] (]) 21:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, unfortunately (because one can learn a lot of math beggining by reading biographies, IMO). ] (]) 22:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


To our list of Misplaced Pages articles that don't exist, about subjects that don't exist, which includes ], we can add ]. ] (]) 21:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
== Category for discussion ==


: For at least 15 years, maybe more, I've thought an article like this ought to appear in a publication of that sort, and pondered attempting to write one, and never really felt up to it, and this one is better than what I would have done. I may write a response that complements it by adding some specific tips about editing Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 03:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion for the category: ] that could do with your input. ] (]) 16:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
::@], @]. That is unexpected. Good job! ] (]) 04:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks to the pointer in ''The Signpost'', I just finished reading "Misplaced Pages Editing and Mathematics" ({{DOI|10.1090/noti3096}}). I don't speak math very well but I do know communication and readability and it's ''so good''. Also, funny. One line even earned my highest honor, inclusion on ], right below a Beyoncé lyric. Seriously tho, thanks to all the contributors. I know it will have good effects on our math content and it was a joy to read. Cheers, ] (]) 04:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== Should we merge ] into ]? ==
== Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process ==


I'm justifying this merge on the grounds of ] since about two thirds of the ''Naive set theory'' artilce is just describing the basic properties of sets, which is already covered in ] and ''Set theory''. Join the dicussion at: ] ] (]) 00:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Our ] article currently begins like this:
:It might be a good idea.
:
:The problem is that there are two different uses of the phrase ''naive set theory'', plus an (incorrect) narrative that conflates them.
: In mathematics, the '''Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process''' (named after ] and ]), is a stochastic process that, roughly speaking, describes the velocity of a massive Brownian particle under the influence of friction.
:One meaning is just set theory without formalization, kind of the way Cantor thought of it. The other meaning is set theory that includes unrestricted comprehension and leads to ] and the other antinomies.
:
:The incorrect, but widely believed, narrative, is that these are essentially the same thing, and that formalization was the ''cure'' for the antinomies.
Does "friction" make sense? The Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process is supposed to tend to return to its mean. Friction doesn't do that; it only retards motion. ] (]) 21:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
:Not really, it appears to be more like a ]. It would also make more sense in my opinion to replace "friction coefficient" with "spring coefficient" but it depends on what can be referenced. ] (]) 21:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC) :It's very difficult to address all of these disparate threads in a coherent article at the title ''naive set theory'', and doing it instead in a section of the main ] article might indeed make sense. --] (]) 00:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Merge ] and ] ==


There was a surprising amount of references / further reading to predatory journals in this article, which I've purged. I think what remains is mostly OK, but I'm no expert on fuzzy sets, so a second look wouldn't hurt.
The merge banners have been up for a while. I agree with merging because there is not much point in ] and is easily contained within ] or (my rewrite of) ]. If there are no objections - I will merge. ] ]] 22:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


I also notice that there's remaining reference to Florentin Smarandache about "Neutrosophic fuzzy sets" there too. I haven't touched it, but it may be unwarranted/undue/craycray stuff.
:Well, no response: these will be merged now. ] ]] 15:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


&#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 13:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] as a disambig page? ==


:This and fractional calculus are areas popular with the people who publish in predatory journals. Probably the references reflect that. —] (]) 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
People may think of "]" as the content of ], but this is a redirect to the main article on ]s. I would prefer to redirect to tensors in curvilinear coordinates, but including both in a disambiguation page would also be ok (maybe better?). Opinions? ] ]] 10:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::Fuzzy review for fuzzy sets.... ] (]) 19:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Can I invent fuzzy fractional calculus? It's an operator that returns something of the order of the regular integral, to the nth power of the integral <math>\int^n_\text{fuzzy}{x} dx = {O\bigl( x^2 \bigr)}^n</math>. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 20:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Google Scholar already reports some 329 papers on fuzzy fractional calculus, in journals of such unimpeachable quality as ''Chaos, Solitons, & Fractals'', the ''Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems'', MDPI ''Mathematics'', etc. —] (]) 21:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Damn, and here I thought I could outcrank the cranks. I suppose I could always claim this came to me through divine revelation and 'publish' via vixra. But more seriously, wrt neutrosophic fuzzy sets, is that undue/fringe, or was Smarandache on something valid? &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 03:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Personally I would nuke it. ] (]) 22:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:I wonder if Misplaced Pages would be improved if there were a bot that automatically removes recently added predatory sources and replaces the citations with {{citation needed}}. Probably would get into a lot of edit wars. ] (]) 02:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::Bot are bad for this, because there will always be 'So and so published this widely reported weirdo idea in ''Journal of Nonsense'', a predatory journal.' But also predatory is a rather ill-defined term. There's a spectrum of shitiness, and where exactly the line is drawn is subjective. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 03:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You can always check ] and ] for help finding garbage publications though. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 03:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


Fuzzy logic is not logic. It is bogus. ] (]) 18:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


== Platonism ==
== sorry, but I'm very annoyed ==


]. ] (]) 19:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I tried to build up the article ] starting two weeks ago (See its diff-history.) Until then it was a "dead" article no activity on a stub level (called start for politness or motivation I think). After I structured and put MUCH contents to give an overview suddenly ] sprang in action. He must "destroy" the things I want to build up and my thoughts how to present the topic consistently. Look at its talk-page about his justification and reasoning. Apparently he has insufficient knowledge (he doesn't know how to build up this topic he had self wrote) but could judge the importance of certain contributions by mathematicans to this subject. :-( I have waited two weeks now to see whether he is able to learn and improve the article back (or others spring in action). But it seems he is unwilling to check the material what is missing or he has deleted. :-(
I withdraw from further contribution to this article and also to Mathematics in general if this is allowed/okay on wikipedia-en, you need really no experts. We(or should I say You?) will never get high quality level of contents. I will look what has happened after 1 week and then decide whether I support wikipedia-en seriously with my knowledge again. Regards, ] (]) 20:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:{{article|Diophantine approximation}}, fwiw. I see that when you picked up on the article, it was about 9300 bytes, and now it's 21,209 bytes. Looking through the history, it's clear that you added most of that; well done & thanks. Without doing an edit by edit trawl through, it seems to me that you have been mostly successful in building up the article, and that what issues there are are surely on the margins. I don't see a 12,209 byte edit war going on. Reading the talk page, it does seem to me that you are getting emotional and being somewhat uncivil. So, your frustration comes through very loud and clear; but it's counterproductive. I earnestly suggest that you focus on staying very very calm, and discussing issue by issue with DL. It's almost certain that both of you are acting in good faith; if you avoid personalising the discussion there's a fair probability you'll make headway. --] ] 20:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::Sorry, you miss the point. I dislike an revision-war, thus no happend, in contrast I with-draw and now after 2 weeks looked what has happend. I will surely not teach and discuss with a person who has too less knowledge (and highly probable know this!) but whom I must/should convince. Sorry, I will not waste again my time with such people! I wonder that people (you?) here judge firstly on "uncivil"/"impolite" than on content/information and this only surficically. Bye. :-( ] (]) 20:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::No, I entirely see your point. You know more than him/her, he/she should just stand out of the damned way. And yes, look at what happened: the vast majority of your changes are still there. Cataclysmic. What you seem not to be able to see, from your exulted position, is that he or she may in fact have valid points to make, despite being an intelectual pygmy; and indeed your diagnosis of DL's enfeebled mental prowess with respect to yours may in fact be incorrect. Until you see that those are fundamental problems in your approach, there really can be little progress beyond you flouncing off and wikipedia sinking slowly into the mire. We can only wait and hope. --] ] 20:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
::::This is ridiculous. Achim1999 behaved terribly impolite in several German WP discussions and now tries the same here. Back to mathematics: His style is to write “It may be remarked that, instead of the factor ''b''<sup>2</sup>, a weight-factor of ''a''<sup>2</sup> could have been used; this would have led to effectively the same properties and insights about rational approximation.” without either showing that this is clear or giving a reference. Achim1999: why don't you make this point clear now? Thank you. -- ] (]) 21:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
:::::From what I can tell, whether Achim1999 and.or D.Lazard are sufficiently mathematically knowledgeable is a sideline. The problem is that the command of English of the former is insufficient to be able to make coherent sense. --] 05:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
::::::Agreed, Achim1999's command of written English is not perfect, and his first drtafts of material can be difficult to understand. This difficulty could be overcome if he were willing to work collaboratively with other editors who could re-draft his contributions. Unfortunately, his abrasive style - as shown in his interactions with D.Lazard - makes this unlikely. It is this combination of imperfect English and confrontational interaction style that is the problem here, IMO. ] (]) 08:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
I want not enter in a discussion about who is the greatest mathematician nor about Achim1099 aggressive style. Let just recall that he has had his disruptive behavior also in ] and ].
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 23:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)


:With nobody stepping up to improve the article or push back against the concerns raised on the reassessment page (and I am not volunteering to do either of those things myself) this appears headed for delisting. —] (]) 18:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
IMO ] needs further attention by memberships of the project. Before Achim1999's edit, it was a stub. Achim has introduced in it a number of relevant results, but also a number of sentences that can not reasonably be understood, a number of assertions that are pure ] and, at least, one mathematical mistake (recently corrected). Moreover, the structure he gave to the article does not give a ] to Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem. In particular he emphasizes on the use of 1/''b''<sup>2</sup> to measure the approximation, when other exponents are at least as important (1/''b''<sup>2+''ε''</sup> for Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem).


== Question... ==
I have resolved some of these issues, but a lot of work is yet needed, <s>that I am not willing to do alone</s>. Two points are behind my knowledge: I mention applications to Diophantine equations in the lead but I am not able to be more explicit. I believe that there are other applications (to ergodic theory?), but I have not enough information to put anything in the article.


Silly question, and while this maybe isn't directly project related, our ] article doesn't seem to answer it. I stumbled upon this problem on an random forum, and there are two clans for answers
] (]) 09:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


:<math>2^{3^{2^{1^0}}}=8^{2^{1^0}}=64^{1^0}=64^0=1</math> (inner exponent priority A)
:Not commenting on the behavioral issues, the edits to ] and ] over the past weeks have been net improvements. It would be ideal if Lazard and Achim could collaborate amicably, since jointly they benefit the project more than either does individually. I would be sorry to see Achim leave the project over this issue. ] (]) 13:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
and
::Contrarily that I have said above, I have further edited ]. Although I am misplaced to judge, I find decent the present version. I hope you will enjoy to read it. However there is yet many things to do in order to have a good article, in particular in the end of the article (from section "Kintchin" on). ] (]) 17:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
:<math>2^{3^{2^{1^0}}}=2^{3^{2^{1}}}=2^{3^{2}}=2^9=512</math> (outer exponent priority B)


I'm pretty sure the correct answer is A otherwise the multiplication of exponent rules wouldn't work, but I haven't ever seen any textbook/class/etc. address order of exponents specifically. Does anyone have such a resource/reference? &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
== List of partition topics ==


: Check out ]. B is the usual. --<code>&#123;&#123;u&#124;]&#125;&#125;&nbsp;{]}</code> 00:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I've made the ] into a somewhat more organized article than it was. More work could be done. Possibly the section on set partitions could be further subdivided. ] (]) 16:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
::The reason B is usual is that A can be expressed more directly as <math>2^{3\cdot 2\cdot 1\cdot 0}</math>. —] (]) 00:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Hmmm. I see... Interesting. I would have assumed the other way for the usual. I also see it's arbitrary/varies with implementation. Not sure why I overlooked that section. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 03:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Articles with special character titles ==
== Hodge Dual ==


Just noting a rather mundane observation that ] appears to be one of the only articles with a (Greek) special character in the name, rather than its anglicization. Only other exception I could find is ]. ] (]) 22:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I've been struggling with trying to understand the Hodge dual article for a while. To be honest, I didn't get anything from it at all. I found an on-line text that explained it in a, to me at least, much more natural way. (It actually motivated the definition!) I've added a section to the article: ], to hopefully add that extra clarity which I found useful. But I'm no expert and would appreciate it if someone could take a look at it. Cheers. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">— ] <font color="#000000">(])</font></span> 18:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


== ] ==
*Hi, have you looked at some of the posts at math.stackexchange, in particular If it doesn't address your question, I'd like to encourage you to ask your own there, because I would like to see what answers appear. ] (]) 17:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


::It seems bizarre to me that someone would understand the ] as one questioner at stackexchange claims to do, and yet not understand the much simpler concept of ]. Or have I missed something? ] (]) 07:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Hello! Is there anyone willing to help me improve the article '']''? Thank you! P.S. I did not find a WikiProject on Logic, so Math is the closest relative! :) ] (]) 08:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


:I was going to point you to ] as the other close relative, but you appear to have already found it. —] (]) 08:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::When the dual space is identified with the vector space through a metric, as for example in ] where the dual space is not even mentioned, it seems reasonable that someone might understand the Hodge dual without understanding the concept of the dual space. Those with familiarity of GA might prefer to study the Clifford dual and move from there to the Hodge dual. Lounesto (2001, footnote p39) indicates a subtle distinction between the two in the context of GA. I also find the Hodge dual article difficult to follow properly. — ]] 15:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


Any professional logicians here? ] (]) 13:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
== Proposed GA collaboration ==


For those interested in improving the article: Take a look at the topic "An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic. How to find book reviews?" at ]'s user talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:David_Eppstein&oldid=1267247169
I was browsing ], and saw that ] is only start class. Would anyone be interested in collaborating to get this most important mathematical article up to GA status?--<span style="">] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">]&#124;]</span></span> 19:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


Following suggestions of ], the article is now much better. Everyone is welcome to participate in the editing. ] (]) 11:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== Recent edits from 32.173.153.198: are they vandalism ==


I gave up improving the article. I am currently not in a position to do so. ] (]) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The recent edits to mathematics pages by ] are puzzling. They introduce some subtle errors; most of them have already been reverted. I'd like to ] here, but I think it's important to watch any further edits from that address. ] (]) 02:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
:See also ]; I can't see any way to interpret the comments by those two editors, presently at ] as stating that he/she '''will''' vandalize unless Misplaced Pages can find a structural way to prevent it. (And they have now all been reverted.) — ] ] 04:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
::Subtle this. "It is good to put mistakes in encyclopedias because that will encourage people to love their offspring." Dangerous madness that, worse even than (puke) religion. There is a structural way to stop such behaviour: block the IP address as soon as it happens. --] 05:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Obvious troll is obvious. ] (]) 13:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Check the edit I just reverted on ] by some guy calling himself Shrohaneinstein. I don't know if it's vandalism or stupidity, nor do I know if it's 32.173.153.198 or 24.18.247.140. - ] (]) 13:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
: No, not anything like the IP edits; much more likely someone who thinks they understand more than they do. (It reads like a sort of typical proof by someone who doesn't really understand what proofs are yet.) -- ] (]) 14:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
::Similarly incoherent job done by that same user on ] which might also need attention. These are the first 2 edits by that user, so I suppose one ought to be gentle. --] 18:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


:The work you've done looks good! ] (]) 17:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
== Fernando Revilla ==
:I could give a go at it. My field of expertise isn't in non-classical logic, but I have created multiple articles in other areas of mathematics and computer science&mdash;would that be alright? ] (]) 18:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


::Thanks guys!!! Yes, sure: ]! ] (]) 19:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The new article ] has the interesting sentence "In this lecture , it is proven that dynamic processes assocciated with natural number characterize the Goldbach's conjecture, a characterization which is lost in an instant of time, obtaining a temporal singularity." This suggests that the article may need some attention. -- ] (]) 09:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


The article was greatly improved by ]!!! Thank you so much. ^^ ] (]) 21:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:Full name Fernando Revilla Jiménez, created by ] who has only made this article and added an external link to Revilla's website to ]. Looks like an obvious ]. ] (]) 10:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


:Of course! No problem at all, it looks like a fun read! I'm going to be reading it over the new few months for sure. ] (]) 21:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


]. ] (]) 08:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
What '''is''' that article? Should it be trimmed and the non-obvious parts moved to ]. I know the article is old, but is there any evidence the term is actually used? I would rather not propose a merge tag before I understand what it is. — ] ] 15:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


== Diameter proposed merge ==
:As far as I can tell, at least some of the article concerns analytic functions of ]s. Presumably this is what the article ''should'' be about, although most of it is written in a very obscure way. ] (]) 17:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Our diameter articles used to be a mess in which all diameter-related topics were relegated to a subsection of the article on diameter of a circle. I just took some effort over the past few weeks to split some of them out into separate articles. Now ] wants to undo that and merge some of my newly-split articles back together. Please join the discussion at ]. —] (]) 18:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
== History of Math books ==


=={{anchor|Transformation rules}} ]==
This may already be common knowledge, but a fellow librarian drew my attention to the AMS's set which they have made available free online -- could be a useful resource for referencing some of the history of math/mathematician articles! -- ] / <small>(])</small> 17:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Is the intent for the series of articles listed in the template above to focus on classical logic, or is it acceptable to expand them to non-classical cases? ] (]) 20:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:37, 9 January 2025

Main pageDiscussionContentAssessmentParticipantsResources
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Mathematics and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcuts
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 
? 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 project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMathematics
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Archiving icon
WikiProject Mathematics archives ()
Earlier years

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Edit this box

Please check Modular arithmetic

Please check the recent edits to Modular arithmetic - I don't think that they are constructive. Bubba73 05:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are talking of the 3 last edits by a new editor (username in red), I reverted them before reading this post. D.Lazard (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Bubba73 17:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

New publication of possible interest to project members

Eppstein, D.; Lewis, J. B.; Woodroofe, Russ; XOR'easter (2025), "Princ-wiki-a mathematica: Misplaced Pages editing and mathematics" (PDF), Notices of the AMS, 72 (1): 65–73. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Nice work. Hopefully giving a balanced impression of what lies in store for editors attracts more potential contributions than it scares away. :-P –jacobolus (t) 20:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I've just finished reading it from beggining to end. Btw, I've noticed even articles about Fields Medalist can be stubby (e.g. Shigefumi Mori). Yesterday I wondered if it was not because so few professional mathematicians participate in Misplaced Pages work. Duseverse (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
As an alternative guess, I suggest that biographies don't interest everyone. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately (because one can learn a lot of math beggining by reading biographies, IMO). Duseverse (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

To our list of Misplaced Pages articles that don't exist, about subjects that don't exist, which includes Omphalology, we can add Non-Riemannian hypersquare. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

For at least 15 years, maybe more, I've thought an article like this ought to appear in a publication of that sort, and pondered attempting to write one, and never really felt up to it, and this one is better than what I would have done. I may write a response that complements it by adding some specific tips about editing Misplaced Pages articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
@David Eppstein, @XOR'easter. That is unexpected. Good job! Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to the pointer in The Signpost, I just finished reading "Misplaced Pages Editing and Mathematics" (doi:10.1090/noti3096). I don't speak math very well but I do know communication and readability and it's so good. Also, funny. One line even earned my highest honor, inclusion on User:Jengod/Notable quotables, right below a Beyoncé lyric. Seriously tho, thanks to all the contributors. I know it will have good effects on our math content and it was a joy to read. Cheers, jengod (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we merge Naive set theory into Set theory?

I'm justifying this merge on the grounds of WP:content fork since about two thirds of the Naive set theory artilce is just describing the basic properties of sets, which is already covered in Set (mathematics) and Set theory. Join the dicussion at: Talk:Naive set theory#Merge with Set theory? Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be a good idea.
The problem is that there are two different uses of the phrase naive set theory, plus an (incorrect) narrative that conflates them.
One meaning is just set theory without formalization, kind of the way Cantor thought of it. The other meaning is set theory that includes unrestricted comprehension and leads to Russell's paradox and the other antinomies.
The incorrect, but widely believed, narrative, is that these are essentially the same thing, and that formalization was the cure for the antinomies.
It's very difficult to address all of these disparate threads in a coherent article at the title naive set theory, and doing it instead in a section of the main set theory article might indeed make sense. --Trovatore (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Fuzzy set

There was a surprising amount of references / further reading to predatory journals in this article, which I've purged. I think what remains is mostly OK, but I'm no expert on fuzzy sets, so a second look wouldn't hurt.

I also notice that there's remaining reference to Florentin Smarandache about "Neutrosophic fuzzy sets" there too. I haven't touched it, but it may be unwarranted/undue/craycray stuff.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This and fractional calculus are areas popular with the people who publish in predatory journals. Probably the references reflect that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Fuzzy review for fuzzy sets.... XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Can I invent fuzzy fractional calculus? It's an operator that returns something of the order of the regular integral, to the nth power of the integral ∫ fuzzy n x d x = O ( x 2 ) n {\displaystyle \int _{\text{fuzzy}}^{n}{x}dx={O{\bigl (}x^{2}{\bigr )}}^{n}} . Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Google Scholar already reports some 329 papers on fuzzy fractional calculus, in journals of such unimpeachable quality as Chaos, Solitons, & Fractals, the Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, MDPI Mathematics, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Damn, and here I thought I could outcrank the cranks. I suppose I could always claim this came to me through divine revelation and 'publish' via vixra. But more seriously, wrt neutrosophic fuzzy sets, is that undue/fringe, or was Smarandache on something valid? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Personally I would nuke it. JBL (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I wonder if Misplaced Pages would be improved if there were a bot that automatically removes recently added predatory sources and replaces the citations with . Probably would get into a lot of edit wars. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Bot are bad for this, because there will always be 'So and so published this widely reported weirdo idea in Journal of Nonsense, a predatory journal.' But also predatory is a rather ill-defined term. There's a spectrum of shitiness, and where exactly the line is drawn is subjective. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
You can always check WP:CITEWATCH and WP:UPSD for help finding garbage publications though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Fuzzy logic is not logic. It is bogus. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Platonism

This discussion over at WikiProject Physics may also be of relevance to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Alfred North Whitehead

Alfred North Whitehead has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

With nobody stepping up to improve the article or push back against the concerns raised on the reassessment page (and I am not volunteering to do either of those things myself) this appears headed for delisting. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Question...

Silly question, and while this maybe isn't directly project related, our PEMDAS article doesn't seem to answer it. I stumbled upon this problem on an random forum, and there are two clans for answers

2 3 2 1 0 = 8 2 1 0 = 64 1 0 = 64 0 = 1 {\displaystyle 2^{3^{2^{1^{0}}}}=8^{2^{1^{0}}}=64^{1^{0}}=64^{0}=1} (inner exponent priority A)

and

2 3 2 1 0 = 2 3 2 1 = 2 3 2 = 2 9 = 512 {\displaystyle 2^{3^{2^{1^{0}}}}=2^{3^{2^{1}}}=2^{3^{2}}=2^{9}=512} (outer exponent priority B)

I'm pretty sure the correct answer is A otherwise the multiplication of exponent rules wouldn't work, but I haven't ever seen any textbook/class/etc. address order of exponents specifically. Does anyone have such a resource/reference? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Check out Order_of_operations#Serial_exponentiation. B is the usual. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The reason B is usual is that A can be expressed more directly as 2 3 ⋅ 2 ⋅ 1 ⋅ 0 {\displaystyle 2^{3\cdot 2\cdot 1\cdot 0}} . —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm. I see... Interesting. I would have assumed the other way for the usual. I also see it's arbitrary/varies with implementation. Not sure why I overlooked that section. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Articles with special character titles

Just noting a rather mundane observation that μ operator appears to be one of the only articles with a (Greek) special character in the name, rather than its anglicization. Only other exception I could find is Ξ function. Tule-hog (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic

Hello! Is there anyone willing to help me improve the article An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic? Thank you! P.S. I did not find a WikiProject on Logic, so Math is the closest relative! :) MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I was going to point you to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philosophy as the other close relative, but you appear to have already found it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Any professional logicians here? MathKeduor7 (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

For those interested in improving the article: Take a look at the topic "An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic. How to find book reviews?" at David Eppstein's user talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:David_Eppstein&oldid=1267247169

Following suggestions of David Eppstein, the article is now much better. Everyone is welcome to participate in the editing. MathKeduor7 (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I gave up improving the article. I am currently not in a position to do so. MathKeduor7 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The work you've done looks good! Tule-hog (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I could give a go at it. My field of expertise isn't in non-classical logic, but I have created multiple articles in other areas of mathematics and computer science—would that be alright? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks guys!!! Yes, sure: Misplaced Pages:Be bold! MathKeduor7 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The article was greatly improved by GregariousMadness!!! Thank you so much. ^^ MathKeduor7 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course! No problem at all, it looks like a fun read! I'm going to be reading it over the new few months for sure. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic. MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Diameter proposed merge

Our diameter articles used to be a mess in which all diameter-related topics were relegated to a subsection of the article on diameter of a circle. I just took some effort over the past few weeks to split some of them out into separate articles. Now User:fgnievinski wants to undo that and merge some of my newly-split articles back together. Please join the discussion at Talk:Diameter of a set. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Transformation rules

Is the intent for the series of articles listed in the template above to focus on classical logic, or is it acceptable to expand them to non-classical cases? Tule-hog (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: