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 18:25, 27 August 2019 editMichael Hardy (talk | contribs)Administrators210,287 edits →A question about English grammar: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:26, 15 January 2025 edit undoDavid Eppstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators226,611 edits →Calculators!: new sectionTag: New topic 
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/>]
|-
| style="padding-top: 6pt; border-top: 1pt solid #c0c090;"|
<center>This page is devoted to discussions of issues relating to mathematics articles on Misplaced Pages. Related discussion pages include:</center>
{{columns-list|colwidth=22em|
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] (Please ask general questions of interest here).
}}
|-
|align="center" style="font-size: small; padding-top: 6pt; border-top: 1pt solid #c0c090"|Please and ].
|}
{{FAQ}} {{FAQ}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Mathematics}}
}}
{{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics/archivelist}}
{{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=lowercase sigmabot III |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}}
{{Misplaced Pages ad exists|258}}
{{-}}
{|
|-valign=top
|
__TOC__
|
{{Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics/archivelist}}
<!-- {{shortcut|]}} This is now in the archivelist -->
|-
|}


== Strange editor == == ] ==

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.

&#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] · ] · ] · ]}</span> 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. —] (]) 18:07, 29 December 2024 (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)

== Good article reassessment for ] ==
] 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)

== Question... ==

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

:<math>2^{3^{2^{1^0}}}=8^{2^{1^0}}=64^{1^0}=64^0=1</math> (inner exponent priority A)
and
:<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)

: Check out ]. B is the usual. --<code>&#123;&#123;u&#124;]&#125;&#125;&nbsp;{]}</code> 00:13, 4 January 2025 (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 ==

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)

== ] ==

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)

Any professional logicians here? ] (]) 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 ]'s user talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:David_Eppstein&oldid=1267247169

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

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

:The work you've done looks good! ] (]) 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&mdash;would that be alright? ] (]) 18:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks guys!!! Yes, sure: ]! ] (]) 19:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)


Please look at these edits: ]; not vandalism, but... something strange? ] (]) 16:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC) The article was greatly improved by ]!!! Thank you so much. ^^ ] (]) 21:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)


:It may not be deliberate destruction motivated by hatred of the good, but damaging things as a result of carelessness or ignorance can be just as harmful. ] (]) 01:21, 12 August 2019 (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)


::Now blocked indefinitely. ] (]) 08:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC) ]. ] (]) 08:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


== Diameter proposed merge ==
== Australian IP edit-wars in ] ==


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)
Insists that knows the only correct notation and <del>the rest of the world</del> the preceding version is “wrong”. Look at {{canonicalurl:Quaternion|action=history&offset=2019081216&limit=9}} and ], please. ] (]) 15:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


=={{anchor|Transformation rules}} ]==
== Very depressing bug in the editor ==
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)
:IMHO, there should be separate templates for each. ] (]) 01:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::Different templates makes sense, but how about the articles themselves? For example, should ] discuss the natural deductive rule used in classical and intuitionistic logic more explicitly? It seems that may have been partially the intent of ]. ] (]) 01:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Now you've got me: tough question. ] (]) 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


== Human translators ==
I was editing ]. I had planned out what I wanted to say in my head and was rushing to get it committed to writing before I forgot it. As usual, there were times when I needed to look at another article to get the correct spelling or latex symbol. This time, I went to the ] to get the symbol for the powerset. I had to enter the editor to see the source of that article to get "\mathcal (P)". When I tried to back out of that edit and return to my original edit, it would not allow me to do so. Ultimately, I had to "resend" to escape and as a result I lost most of what I had already written. I cannot say in words just how discouraging this is. For several minutes I sat stunned, enervated, unable to do anything. Eventually, I forced myself to re-enter an approximation to what I had written before.


Is there anyone with time and desire to translate these two pages:
This is not the first time this has happened. It has happened several times before. But it is infrequent enough that I forget to take precautions against it. Is there some way to get this bug fixed? ] (]) 01:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:Which editor(s) are you using? It may make a difference. I haven't had problems except when my browser exceeded available memory on my machine and locked up.... 01:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:
:{{ec|how ironic}} Not quite sure I'm following your steps exactly. Do you mean that from the edit window, you went directly to another article (maybe via the search bar), and then hit the back button on your browser only to find that it hadn't saved the state of what you were doing? If so, then that's not really a bug; there's no guarantee that a browser will keep the current state of what you're doing cached if you move forward to another page. Ideally it will try to, especially for simple stuff, but that's not something you can rely on. On the other hand, if you go browsing in another tab or window, then all should be fine, but if not, it's likely browser-related, not a Mediawiki issue. Or have I misunderstood what the problem is? &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 01:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


* https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%A2%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%B2_%D0%90%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87
::To Arthur Rubin: I was just using the normal editor provided by Misplaced Pages, the old one, not the visual editor.
::To Deacon Vorbis: Yes, I think you got it right. My browser is Firefox. I was thinking that there are three things I might do to work around this: (1) copy the source of my edit into a file on my disk before going on such expeditions, just in case this happens; (2) do the search and cutting (before pasting) in another copy of Firefox; or (3) save my edit before I am really done and then edit again after I have done the search. What do you recommend? ] (]) 06:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:::This depends on the browser, and even on the browser version. With Safari, non-saved edits are sometime lost, sometime not lost when one come back to a page with the back button. If one has left the page after clicking "show preview", edits are sometimes kept, but with the most recent versions they are kept only if one does almost nothing (no search in the page, no diff, no look to the source, ...) with the visited page(s). Therefore, I have now the habit to use another tab for navigation during an editing process, and, when searching or following a link from the edit window, to to it with the right button and "open the link in another tab". ] (]) 07:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
::::That's more or less my habit as well. ] (]) 15:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
:::::To Lazard: Thanks for the suggestion. I will try the ''right-click on a link to get a separate tab'' method. ] (]) 01:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


* https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B0_%D0%93%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0_%E2%80%94_%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B4%D0%B0
:I’m late but I can confirm I had the same type of (very disheartening) experiences before on multiple occasions; they may have been in Misplaced Pages or some other website. Since I couldn’t figure out the behavior (how unsubmitted text is handled), my habit has been to copy large text into the clipboard before hitting submit (if edits are small, I don’t bother). —- ] (]) 22:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


My Russian language skills are of a beginner... :( ] (]) 01:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== Factorial and double exponential ==


:Cleaning up the Google translate version is probably not too far off, if you can write clearly in English. Most of the content of the Tumarkin article in particular is pretty straight-forward biographical detail. I like the story at the end. Google translate renders it:
See recent history of ]. An editor there insists that the constant function f(x)=1 is an example of a double exponential function and on using that example to change the statement that the factorial grows "slower than ]s" to the overly-pedantic "slower than many double exponential functions e.g. (example)". I don't think this is an improvement, but additional opinions might be more helpful than my repeated reversion of these edits. —] (]) 22:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
:{{tqb| L. A. Tumarkin was also prone to a certain absent-mindedness (often characteristic of mathematicians). In the autumn of 1972, he mixed up the day of the week and, as usual, shortly before the bell, entered room 16-24 of the Main Building of Moscow State University, intending to give a lecture on analysis to first-year students of the Mechanics Department of the Mechanics and Mathematics Department (in reality, at that time, he was supposed to give an analysis lecture to students of the Chemistry Department ). A couple of minutes later, Associate Professor E. B. Vinberg entered the room through another door (his lecture on higher algebra was on the schedule). A silent scene ensued - for some time, both lecturers silently looked at each other, after which Tumarkin became embarrassed and left the room, heading to the Chemistry Department (the chemistry students waited for him for forty minutes that day - no one left); Vinberg silently raised both hands in a triumphant gesture, after which he turned to the board and wrote down the topic of the next lecture.}}
:–] ] 02:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:By the way, those links can be written more conveniently as ] and ]. ] (]) 04:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)


Thank you jacobolus and Tamfang, I've tried to translate a bit, but the language is a problem for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lev_Tumarkin&diff=1268910918&oldid=1268659028 ] (]) 03:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
== Puzzled by watchlist ==


== ] ==
This WPM talk page is on my watchlist, in the sense that I do see the corresponding blue star between "View history" and "More". And nevertheless it does not appear on my watchlist. This is a new phenomenon (the last week or two). Mostly, my watchlist looks as before; but some items are missing, I do not know why. If I click the blue star ("remove this page from your watchlist") and then click the (no more blue) start again (making it blue again), it helps; the page returns to my watchlist. But afterward it disappears again. Why so? ] (]) 06:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


In the course of editing ], I noticed that the page ] is entirely sourced to Trèves' reference on topological vector spaces. If you obtain a copy and go to the relevant part, you find that our article not only contains excessive detail and ]-like style, but very closely parallels the exposition. So there are ''one source'' and ''close paraphrase'' issues. This also seems to be a content fork: it presents one rather obscure abstract TVS spproach to a topic which is well known in other contexts—essentially, multivariate differential calculus. If it were hypothetically merged into the page about multivariable calculus, it would certainly be undue weight on the TVS approach.
Or maybe not quite so. I just tried to click twice the star on ] (edited by me yesterday, and by a bot today); it did not help. ] (]) 06:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


I am wondering if this subject is actually covered to this extent in other RS than Trèves. I couldn't find other sources but am not the best at that. If not, would it be reasonable to open a deletion discussion?
== Empty square root ==


Thanks, ] &#124; ] 20:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
The empty square root <math>\sqrt{\;}</math> generated as <nowiki><math>\sqrt{\;}</math></nowiki> is very badly aligned (I have found this in ]). The reason seems that the alignment is done on the center of the argument and that the space character is viewed as a zero-height character placed at the bottom of the line. For having a normal alignment such as <math>\sqrt{{~^~}^~\!\!},</math> I have used <nowiki><math>\sqrt{{~^~}^~\!\!}</math>.</nowiki> Do someone know a less weird method for a similar result? ] (]) 07:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
:P.S. A similar result (<math>\sqrt{\color{white}{x}}</math>) is obtained with <nowiki><math>\sqrt{\color{white}{x}}</math>,</nowiki> but it is also semantically doubtful. ] (]) 07:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
:: Try <nowiki><math>\surd</math></nowiki>, giving <math>\surd</math>. No horizontal bar, but it does better align it with the text. If WP handled real TeX, <nowiki>\sqrt{\phantom{x}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>\sqrt{\hspace{1em}}</nowiki> would be reasonable ways to create an empty square root.--<code>&#123;&#123;u&#124;]&#125;&#125;&nbsp;{]}</code> 08:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


:FYI for long timers here. It's another one of those from @]. ] (]) 06:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== Convex hull lower bound ==


== Review of ] ==
Please see ] --] (]) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
:Already answered there. ] (]) 09:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


I've been working on ] for some time now. My goal is to get it to Good Article status, and I think it's getting to a point that seems possible (It's currently rated C-class). I don't think I'm ready to nominate it yet, but I'd still like some scrutiny from other editors so I can keep working on it.
== Cocycle of a group action ==


I'm aware the lead needs to be rewritten after substantial edits to the body, and I haven't really touched the the ''Isomorphism'' section yet, but other than that, I'm not sure what else to work on.
It is a pity that cocycle of a group action is not treated; neither in "]", nor in "]". See ]. ] (]) 08:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


(This was the article before my first edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equality_(mathematics)&oldid=1216998067<nowiki/>) <span class="nowrap">– ] (])</span> 04:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
== Pollard algorithms ==


:Wow! Great job! My only suggestion would be to tell of the classical example of why we nowadays use congruence instead of equality for line segments of the same length etc in elementary euclidean geometry. I think it's mentioned in the ] article. Anyways, I think it's not far from GA status. ] (]) 07:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Are ] and ] about the same thing? ] <sup>]</sup> 15:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


:Also, If I remember right, Euclid called two figures of equal area as equal figures. This sounds nonsense nowadays, but it made sense back then. So... A history section. ] (]) 08:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:I am not acquainted with these; but in "]" I read: "Pollard's kangaroo algorithm ... introduced ... in the same paper as his better-known Pollard's rho algorithm"; if so, then they are two different algorithms "for solving the same problem". ] (]) 17:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
:Just a drive-by comment that Refs 13 and 27 should be merged into one, and also their formatting seems broken. ] (]) 15:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


== ] ==
:: The way it seems to me is that ] is for factoring numbers and the other two use a similar method for finding discrete logarithms. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


This has been unreferenced for over 15 years. There was a discussion on the talk page 14 years ago that went nowhere. If it's notable, then find and add reliable sources. If not, then please do us a favor and nominate it at ]. ] (]) 04:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


:You can nominate it yourself. I support this nomination. ] (]) 13:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Is this a topic that deserves a separate article? ] already covers the topic but a quick Google search shows the topic is of independent interest. (I admit I’m not a specialist on this area so the others might know better.) — ] (]) 22:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
: No separate IMHO, but definitely as little as redirect to ]<del>, especially because the article already mentions the genus of it (albeit without a wiki link)</del>. ] (]) 16:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC) :I've significantly improved the article with more sources. Could you take a look? Thank you! ] (]) 09:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Where in ] is the genus of a Cayley graph discussed? --] (]) 17:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
::: In fact, nowhere the genus '''of''' the graph ({{serif|I}} suffered a glitch). Anyway the concept is defined via Cayley graphs and may deserve a section there. ] (]) 17:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
:::: I'd start by writing about the concept at ] and then breaking it out into its own article if that material grows too big. ] (]) 17:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


== Calculators! ==
== A question about English grammar ==


Following ] I have experimentally added a triangle area calculator to {{slink|Heron's formula|Example}}. I'm not entirely convinced this is a good idea, but maybe it can work for other articles about simple formulas. Probably this board is the right place to discuss the pros and cons of doing this in general. —] (]) 08:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
The article titled ] begins like this:
<blockquote>In ], a '''nonlocal ]''' is a ] which maps functions on a topological space to functions, in such a way that the value of the output function at a given point cannot be determined solely from the values of the input function in any neighbourhood of any point. An example of a nonlocal operator is the ].
</blockquote>
Occasionally I think English-speaking mathematicians are not attentive enough to nuances of the use of the word&nbsp;'''''any'''''.
:
:: This function can take any number as an input.
is not quite the same as
:: This function can take every number as an input.
since in some contexts this might mean every number at the same time. But
:: Any function from '''R''' into whatever is blah blah blah.
means
:: Every function from '''R''' into whatever is blah blah blah.
But suppose you say
:: If it is the case that any function from '''R''' into whatever is blah blah blah then etc.etc.
That is in danger of being read as
:: If any function from '''R''' into whatever is blah blah blah then etc.etc.
and hence as
:: If there is any function from '''R''' into whatever is blah blah blah then etc.etc.
so that a universal quantifier in the writer's mind becomes an existential quantifier in the reader's mind. Merely writing "every" instead of "any" at the outset is all it takes to obviate this hazard.
:
Thus "any" can be universal in some contexts ("Anyone can do that.") and existential in others ("There isn't any." or "If anyone can run a 50 meters in three seconds, it's Usain Bolt.") The contexts in which it becomes existential seem to be these:
: Negative sentences: "I've never seen any examples of that."
: Questions: "Is there any money left?"
: Conditional clauses: "If there is any money left, donate it to Misplaced Pages."
How shall we apply this to the two occurrence of the word ''any'' in the passage quoted from ]? ] (]) 18:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:26, 15 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

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)

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)

IMHO, there should be separate templates for each. MathKeduor7 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Different templates makes sense, but how about the articles themselves? For example, should implication introduction discuss the natural deductive rule used in classical and intuitionistic logic more explicitly? It seems that may have been partially the intent of List of rules of inference. Tule-hog (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Now you've got me: tough question. MathKeduor7 (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Human translators

Is there anyone with time and desire to translate these two pages:

My Russian language skills are of a beginner... :( MathKeduor7 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Cleaning up the Google translate version is probably not too far off, if you can write clearly in English. Most of the content of the Tumarkin article in particular is pretty straight-forward biographical detail. I like the story at the end. Google translate renders it:

L. A. Tumarkin was also prone to a certain absent-mindedness (often characteristic of mathematicians). In the autumn of 1972, he mixed up the day of the week and, as usual, shortly before the bell, entered room 16-24 of the Main Building of Moscow State University, intending to give a lecture on analysis to first-year students of the Mechanics Department of the Mechanics and Mathematics Department (in reality, at that time, he was supposed to give an analysis lecture to students of the Chemistry Department ). A couple of minutes later, Associate Professor E. B. Vinberg entered the room through another door (his lecture on higher algebra was on the schedule). A silent scene ensued - for some time, both lecturers silently looked at each other, after which Tumarkin became embarrassed and left the room, heading to the Chemistry Department (the chemistry students waited for him for forty minutes that day - no one left); Vinberg silently raised both hands in a triumphant gesture, after which he turned to the board and wrote down the topic of the next lecture.

–jacobolus (t) 02:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
By the way, those links can be written more conveniently as ru:Тумаркин, Лев Абрамович and ru:Проблема Гильберта — Арнольда. —Tamfang (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you jacobolus and Tamfang, I've tried to translate a bit, but the language is a problem for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lev_Tumarkin&diff=1268910918&oldid=1268659028 MathKeduor7 (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space

In the course of editing Injective tensor product, I noticed that the page Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space is entirely sourced to Trèves' reference on topological vector spaces. If you obtain a copy and go to the relevant part, you find that our article not only contains excessive detail and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK-like style, but very closely parallels the exposition. So there are one source and close paraphrase issues. This also seems to be a content fork: it presents one rather obscure abstract TVS spproach to a topic which is well known in other contexts—essentially, multivariate differential calculus. If it were hypothetically merged into the page about multivariable calculus, it would certainly be undue weight on the TVS approach.

I am wondering if this subject is actually covered to this extent in other RS than Trèves. I couldn't find other sources but am not the best at that. If not, would it be reasonable to open a deletion discussion?

Thanks, ByVarying | talk 20:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

FYI for long timers here. It's another one of those from @Mgkrupa. PatrickR2 (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Review of Equality (mathematics)

I've been working on Equality (mathematics) for some time now. My goal is to get it to Good Article status, and I think it's getting to a point that seems possible (It's currently rated C-class). I don't think I'm ready to nominate it yet, but I'd still like some scrutiny from other editors so I can keep working on it.

I'm aware the lead needs to be rewritten after substantial edits to the body, and I haven't really touched the the Isomorphism section yet, but other than that, I'm not sure what else to work on.

(This was the article before my first edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Equality_(mathematics)&oldid=1216998067) – Farkle Griffen (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow! Great job! My only suggestion would be to tell of the classical example of why we nowadays use congruence instead of equality for line segments of the same length etc in elementary euclidean geometry. I think it's mentioned in the transformation geometry article. Anyways, I think it's not far from GA status. MathKeduor7 (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, If I remember right, Euclid called two figures of equal area as equal figures. This sounds nonsense nowadays, but it made sense back then. So... A history section. MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Just a drive-by comment that Refs 13 and 27 should be merged into one, and also their formatting seems broken. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Multidimensional parity-check code

This has been unreferenced for over 15 years. There was a discussion on the talk page 14 years ago that went nowhere. If it's notable, then find and add reliable sources. If not, then please do us a favor and nominate it at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You can nominate it yourself. I support this nomination. D.Lazard (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I've significantly improved the article with more sources. Could you take a look? Thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 09:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Calculators!

Following Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2025-01-15/Technology report I have experimentally added a triangle area calculator to Heron's formula § Example. I'm not entirely convinced this is a good idea, but maybe it can work for other articles about simple formulas. Probably this board is the right place to discuss the pros and cons of doing this in general. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: