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 11:30, 25 October 2019 editHasteur (talk | contribs)31,857 edits →Drafts to be watched: Calling out a lack of AGF← 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 -->
|-
|}


== ] ==
== Article and talk page title mismatch for Dual-complex numbers ==

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)

The article was greatly improved by ]!!! Thank you so much. ^^ ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

]. ] (]) 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 ] 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)


=={{anchor|Transformation rules}} ]==
Currently, the page {{no redirect|Dual-complex numbers}} redirects to ], but {{no redirect|Talk:Dual-complex number}} redirects to ], not vice versa. Either the article and talk page should both be plural, or else, they should both be singular. ] only moved the talk page back to the plural title, but not the article. ] (]) 21:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
:Done, moved the singular article title to the plural article title to match the talk page move by {{u|JBW}}. — ] (]) 22:06, 4 October 2019 (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)
:IMHO, there should be separate templates for each. ] (]) 01:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:: {{ping|MarkH21|JBW|GeoffreyT2000}}That seems backwards: compare ], ], ], etc. --] (]) 22:45, 6 October 2019 (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)
:::{{ping|Joel B. Lewis}} You’re completely right. I made the move just to match the talk page without actually looking at the discussion or reason for the talk page move itself. — ] (]) 23:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
:::Now you've got me: tough question. ] (]) 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Ping|GeoffreyT2000|Joel B. Lewis|MarkH21}} It seems to me more natural to have "complex numbers", "real numbers", etc, but since, as JBL has pointed out, we have the singular forms, I have moved ] back to ] for consistency. And of course moving just the talk page was a mistake; thank you GeoffreyT2000 for pointing it out. ] (]) <small>''Formerly known as JamesBWatson''</small> 12:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


== Human translators ==
== ] ==


Is there anyone with time and desire to translate these two pages:
The article ] survived a ] (at the time, I said that {{tq|where there might be an argument for a merge-and-redirect, that can be decided at a later date}}). It has since been moved to ], which seems to give ] to the "Galois axis" part, given that it appears to be the pet idea of ], himself of uncertain wiki-notability, and not an established term. I may take a crack at sorting all this out myself, but perhaps someone would like to beat me to it. ] (]) 23:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
:Moved back, seems silly when "Galois axis" is defined on "MacCullagh ellipsoids" and is of uncertain notability. — ] (]) 21:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
::The aformentioned article on Adlaj is now at ]. — ] (]) 21:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
:::And now there's an article ]? ] (]) 21:29, 10 October 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
The IP/SPA edit-warring has continued on ] and ], so I have taken Galois axis ] to end the chance for future edit-warring. The activity has also spread to ], ], and ]. Attention appreciated. — ] (]) 15:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
:AfD closed due to some effective edit conflicts with sock disruption. Also forgot to mention the same disruption is also at ].<br/><!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)</small>


* 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
The German Misplaced Pages has a better article on the topic ] which seems to be related to inertial ellipsoid.
It apparently the geometric location of all angular momenta corresponding to the same rotational energy. --] (]): 19:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|Salix alba}} Yes, in fact that corresponds better to the article ], which mentions the inertia ellipsoid and whose existence partially prompted the original ]. — ] (]) 19:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


My Russian language skills are of a beginner... :( ] (]) 01:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== Statement in the lead of the article on infinity ==


: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:
In the article ], there's a statement in the lead: {{tq|"For example, ] uses the existence of very large infinite sets."}} I don't really know anything about this stuff, and this struck me as rather surprising, so I went to look for more. However, nothing in the article talks about this, and nothing at the article on the proof seems to say anything about this either. I also couldn't find anything after a cursory search. So I really have no idea if this is a valid statement or not; I've tagged it with a {{tlx|cn}} for now, but if anyone happens to know more about this, please feel free to either set me right, or even excise the statement with extreme prejudice. Thanks, &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 02:54, 8 October 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.}}
:{{ping|Deacon Vorbis}} It’s because Wiles’ proof (and much of the cohomology used in modern number theory) uses ]s. Within ZFC, their existence is equivalent to the existence of certain large cardinals. Here is . You (or someone else) can judge whether this is appropriate in the lead there though - I don’t really know much about this kind of stuff. — ] (]) 03:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
:–] ] 02:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:Just my impression but that sentence does look out of place, because in mathematics (or at least in algebraic geometry), one doesn’t worry too much about the set-theoretic issues. Some results might collapse without the existence of a strongly inaccessible cardinal. But they might not (with some care, it is sometimes possible to avoid the use of universe but I think people don’t bother). Determining that is an (interesting or uninteresting) original research and cannot be done in Misplaced Pages. — ] (]) 23:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
::I added some words there ("in fact", maybe not "in principle"... according to that source); feel free to revert if you dislike it. ] (]) 20:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC) :By the way, those links can be written more conveniently as ] and ]. ] (]) 04:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
::Maybe I shouldn't argue again after writing "feel free to revert if you dislike it", but let me do. ]'s text "<small>For example, Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem uses the existence of very large infinite sets</small>, ''though it may happen that another proof that avoids such sets will be found''" is deleted by ] with edit summary "this whole bit feels unnecessary, the sentence is about Wiles’ proof - not all proofs - so there’s no implication about any other proof", logically flawless and nevertheless controversial. A reader (human, not robot) seeing that a famous proof uses (or "is written with the implicit reliance on" according to ]) an exotic assumption, probably concludes that this assumption is, or at least is widely believed to be, necessary. Why? First, math textbooks often encourage a student to check that each assumption (of a theorem) is necessary; thus a student may believe that doing otherwise is unprofessional. Second, otherwise, why mention this fact in the lead to "infinity" article? Third, otherwise experts would find (or at least, actively seek; or, at the very least, debate possible existence) of a "better" proof. And really, it is debated <small>(see the source : used "in fact", not "in principle")</small>, which is not even hinted at in our article. Thus is why I feel that our article is a bit misleading (or not neutral). ] (]) 17:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
:::I'm neutral on whether the whole sentence should be kept in the lead or not. (I can see ] might be an interesting thing to mention in the lead.) I changed "use" because the meaning of it is very unclear; one can argue that the use of "universe" is a stylistic choice but not a logical necessity (and I don't think we know the answer). I agree the wording I introduced was somehow strange but I couldn't figure out the better one (would be happy to see the others give a shot too). -- ] (]) 23:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
::::My feeling is that the mention of large cardinals in the use of a famous theorem is mildly interesting and engaging to any reader, but not essential to the lead. However, further elaboration on the possibility of resolving the reliance on Grothendieck universes (still unknown according to the cited source) seems unnecessary for a brief engaging digression. Since Wiles's proof relies on the existence of Grothendieck universes, and it's unknown whether that reliance may be removed by some other way, it seems completely honest to just say that Wiles's proof relies on it. So the current brief mention seems fine and mildly interesting to me, but I disagree with including a further digression on how it's unknown whether the reliance can be removed. — ] (]) 08:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::I'd prefer nothing at all to something a bit misleading. ] (]) 10:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::I introduced this sentence by ]. The purpose of it was to fix a common misconception that infinity would be a philosophical concept in mathematics. IMO, this is important to show that, in mathematics, infinity is no more a philosophical concept, but is, presently, a purely mathematical concept that is mathematically studied, and is widely used across. Looking at many Misplaced Pages article, such as this one, that are close to the interface between philosophy and mathematics, it appears that my above assertions, which are evidence for most mathematicians, are not widely known outside mathematics community. Thus my edit was a tentative for clarify this. The whole article would need to be clarified from this point of view, but, at least, the lead require to be clear, as many readers look only on it.
::::::IMO, the example of ] is essential in the lead, because it the only example that I know that can be used to show to non mathematicians that the manipulation of infinity as a mathematical concept is useful even for problems that seem unrelated. For making clear that this is the purpose of this example, I have completed the sentence by "for solving a long standing problem, which is stated in terms of elementary arithmetic". ] (]) 11:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Nice; but it is unfair to implicitly overstate it by exploiting the implicit assumption of some (or many?) readers that "uses" means here "uses in principle" rather than "uses in fact" (these phrases appear in the source because McLarty recognizes this potential for confusion). Till now, no one addresses my "first", "second" and "third" arguments (above). ] (]) 11:45, 18 October 2019 (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)
== Typo in an article (edit request?) ==


== ] ==
Very unfamiliar with how wikipedia works but this seems to be where to submit this.
In ], under the section "Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers", for the value of 10^51 sexdecillion, it instead says sedecillion. This also does not align with the "Standard dictionary numbers" section of the article with the proper spelling. ] (]) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
:Thank you for your comment. It looks like the "Extensions of the standard dictionary numbers" table is based on , in which the prefix ''se-'' takes an ''x'' before ''octo'' but not before ''deci.'' ] (]) 16:27, 12 October 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.
== ] and ] ==


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?
The ] of the former article links to the latter, with a note: "This notation has little to do with De Bruijn indices, but the name "De Bruijn notation" is often (erroneously) used to stand for it." I do not see how this can be correct - both are ways of representing lambda terms uniquely in terms of alpha-equality, and therefor identical. I'm considering removing this note. ] (]) 11:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
:]. ] (]) 11:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
::Nevertheless, the article began with "Not to be confused with De Bruijn notation. In mathematical logic, the de Bruijn index is a notation..." This was highly confusing. Thus, I have modified the hatnote, and removed the use of "notaation" in the first sentence. In any case, it is wrong to say that De Bruijn index and De Bruijn notation are identical, as the bind variables are named in one case and not in the other. ] (]) 13:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


Thanks, ] &#124; ] 20:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
== ] ==


Dear mathematicians: Here's a draft article that is within the interest of this WikiProject. Perhaps someone who with knowledge of this field can take a look at it.&mdash;] (]) 11:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC) :FYI for long timers here. It's another one of those from @]. ] (]) 06:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:My first impression is that it is ] and would need cleaning up before it could be suitable as an article. The content appears redundant with ], ], ] and other existing articles. ] (]) 17:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


== “Quotient” of functional integrals == == Review of ] ==


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.
Normally, if we write one expression on top of a fraction line and another on the bottom, we evaluate both before dividing. This would yield an indeterminate form when both the numerator and denominator are functional integrals with infinite value. Yet the article on ]s states “Most functional integrals are actually infinite, but then the limit of the quotient of two related functional integrals can still be finite”. Huh?


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.
The topic overall needs love. It’s way too hand-way right now.—] ] 04:31, 23 October 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)
:Apparently, that phrase is like "<math>f'(x)=\tfrac{dy}{dx}</math>" that hints at <math>\lim\tfrac{\Delta y}{\Delta x}</math> rather than <math>\tfrac{\lim\Delta y}{\lim\Delta x}</math>. ] (]) 05:06, 23 October 2019 (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 ] article. Anyways, I think it's not far from GA status. ] (]) 07:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:<s>And by the way: I just added EoM article to "See also" there. But I was not able to use the ], since its "http:" is obsolete and not working; now must be "https:".</s> Oops, no; "id=" is needed, in addition to "title=". ] (]) 06:23, 23 October 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)
== Drafts to be watched ==
: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)


== ] ==
Hi all. There is a possibility that I will be banned in a next day or 2 for an indefinite or definite period of time (see the very last section of ]).


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)
So, it would be nice if some other editors can watch out for non-constructive edits to the draft pages listed in ]. Also, in the thread, there is a proposal that drafts started by me over a year ago should be moved out of the draftspace. Since they are not my drafts, it would be natural to put them as subpages to the project page. If some other editors think this is a good idea, please go ahead and do. (I will not be able to do that myself because of the ban.) —- ] (]) 23:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


When banned, I will also try to publish some error fixes (e.g., typos) at my talkpage that should be made to articles in Misplaced Pages. -- ] (]) 10:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC) :You can nominate it yourself. I support this nomination. ] (]) 13:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:I've significantly improved the article with more sources. Could you take a look? Thank you! ] (]) 09:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:Please ]. Specifically {{tq|non-constructive edits to the draft pages}} implies that editors have ulterior motives and as such is not assuming good faith. Please strike at your earliest opportunity. ] (]) 11:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


== Calculators! ==
== Glossary of Lie algebras → Glossary of Lie groups and Lie algebras ==


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)
Maybe not controversial but I have made a proposal for the move in the title at ]. —- ] (]) 04:04, 25 October 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: