Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Mathematics: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:02, 11 December 2012 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 15d) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2012/Nov.← Previous edit Revision as of 10:13, 12 December 2012 edit undoCoroner's jury (talk | contribs)39 edits →Other views wanted: new sectionNext edit →
Line 292: Line 292:


http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Russell%27s_paradox <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Russell%27s_paradox <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Other views wanted ==

I am appealing to members of the community for comments on my editing, especially as discussed at ] and ]. Another editor has decided that my comments there, and indeed my whole history (all two days of it ) are so awful that not only are all my edits trolling, but I must also be banned and all my edits must be undone. So tell me candidly — are they that bad? If so, away I go at once. But I honestly think they are better than that. ] (]) 10:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:13, 12 December 2012

This is a discussion page for
WikiProject Mathematics
This page is devoted to discussions of issues relating to mathematics articles on Misplaced Pages. Related discussion pages include:
3
Please add new topics at the bottom of the page and sign your posts.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation to the answer, click on the link to the right of the question.

Are Misplaced Pages's mathematics articles targeted at professional mathematicians? No, we target our articles at an appropriate audience. Usually this is an interested layman. However, this is not always possible. Some advanced topics require substantial mathematical background to understand. This is no different from other specialized fields such as law and medical science. If you believe that an article is too advanced, please leave a detailed comment on the article's talk page. If you understand the article and believe you can make it simpler, you are also welcome to improve it, in the framework of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Why is it so difficult to learn mathematics from Misplaced Pages articles? Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a textbook. Misplaced Pages articles are not supposed to be pedagogic treatments of their topics. Readers who are interested in learning a subject should consult a textbook listed in the article's references. If the article does not have references, ask for some on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Mathematics. Misplaced Pages's sister projects Wikibooks which hosts textbooks, and Wikiversity which hosts collaborative learning projects, may be additional resources to consider.
See also: Using Misplaced Pages for mathematics self-study Why are Misplaced Pages mathematics articles so abstract? Abstraction is a fundamental part of mathematics. Even the concept of a number is an abstraction. Comprehensive articles may be forced to use abstract language because that language is the only language available to give a correct and thorough description of their topic. Because of this, some parts of some articles may not be accessible to readers without a lot of mathematical background. If you believe that an article is overly abstract, then please leave a detailed comment on the talk page. If you can provide a more down-to-earth exposition, then you are welcome to add that to the article. Why don't Misplaced Pages's mathematics articles define or link all of the terms they use? Sometimes editors leave out definitions or links that they believe will distract the reader. If you believe that a mathematics article would be more clear with an additional definition or link, please add to the article. If you are not able to do so yourself, ask for assistance on the article's talk page. Why don't many mathematics articles start with a definition? We try to make mathematics articles as accessible to the largest likely audience as possible. In order to achieve this, often an intuitive explanation of something precedes a rigorous definition. The first few paragraphs of an article (called the lead) are supposed to provide an accessible summary of the article appropriate to the target audience. Depending on the target audience, it may or may not be appropriate to include any formal details in the lead, and these are often put into a dedicated section of the article. If you believe that the article would benefit from having more formal details in the lead, please add them or discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Why don't mathematics articles include lists of prerequisites? A well-written article should establish its context well enough that it does not need a separate list of prerequisites. Furthermore, directly addressing the reader breaks Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic tone. If you are unable to determine an article's context and prerequisites, please ask for help on the talk page. Why are Misplaced Pages's mathematics articles so hard to read? We strive to make our articles comprehensive, technically correct and easy to read. Sometimes it is difficult to achieve all three. If you have trouble understanding an article, please post a specific question on the article's talk page. Why don't math pages rely more on helpful YouTube videos and media coverage of mathematical issues? Mathematical content of YouTube videos is often unreliable (though some may be useful for pedagogical purposes rather than as references). Media reports are typically sensationalistic. This is why they are generally avoided.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Mathematics and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73Auto-archiving period: 15 days 

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

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

universal and existential quantifiers

Universal quantifier and Existential quantifier redirected respectively to Universal quantification and Existential quantification. Then user:Gregbard redirected them respectively to Turned a and Turned e --- articles about the typographical symbols. I reverted.

Opinions? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're quite right. I notice that the turned a article also asserts that the symbol is the universal quantifier, which is wrong. I think I'll go fix it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I think that the articles on quantification are more likely what people want, and the article on the symbols "turned a" and "turned e" are not likely what people want, when they load those pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
A Modest Proposal - why not redirect Universal quantifier and Universal quantification to Turned a? RockMagnetist (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Because universal quantification is a mathematical concept and turned a is a typographic symbol. They are two different things. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Did you look at the link? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I am familiar with Swift, yes. I guess I didn't see the connection between this subject and baby-eating. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
It's just an obviously absurd proposal that takes the logic of redirecting to Turned a a step further. It wasn't really meant to be a close analogy to Swift's book. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Gregbard is insisting on his bizarre and idiosyncratic version of things at turned a and turned e. --Trovatore (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Credit where it's due — his latest version at turned e is reasonable. --Trovatore (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Please observe that others have fooled around with it other than myself. I have purposed it to the symbols, not the operations, so if you see something else, it may not be my fault. Greg Bard (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm reverted the redirects again. The concepts and the symbols used in denoting them should not be confused. Any number of concepts (less than etc.) would have the same issue. I wouldn't object too much if he chose to create a redirect Existential quantifier (symbol). — Quondum 08:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
You would support a redirect Existential quantifier (symbol), but apparently it's not a symbol, it's an expression. The Existential quantification and Universal quantification articles have resided noncontroversially within the logical symbols category for some time. So what is the consensus? Does the term "Existential quantifier" refer to an upside down "E" by itself, or only to the combination of an upside down "E" along with a predicate variable? People don't seem to be reverting it, so I would presume that an "existential quantifier" is an expression rather than a symbol. So that means they have been in the wrong category all this time. Facepalm Facepalm WP:MATH Greg Bard (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Logical symbols mixes articles about semantics with those about symbols a fair bit as well. Perhaps organizing that in two columns would help ease the confusion of readers and some editors as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

... or it could stick to symbols as per its name and avoid concepts altogether. It also confuses the symbols themselves: I consider the caret and wedge to be distinct, though I do not know what a logician would refer to the wedge as (perhaps the Latin for 'and', as for vel?). Undue weight also seems to be being put on the use of the symbols in the context of logic by adding the template to those articles, e.g. Up tack, Horseshoe (symbol) and others. — Quondum 09:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the articles turned A and turned E should be changed into redirects to the quantifiers. The symbols themselves have no literature. Basic policy, don't make up topics that people haven't written about. Dmcq (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Having had another look I think perhaps best to turn them into disambiguation pages to one of the IPA phonetic alphabet, the Unicode Mathematical symbols, or the quatifier articles. Dmcq (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The whole idea of the template {{Logical symbols}} seems wrong to me. The symbols do not have any particular separate notability only when the are used together. I believe that template should be deleted as it leads to made up topics like turned a. Dmcq (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
This makes a lot of sense, though I'd suggest caution on suggestion about changing the articles relating to individual symbols. You just need to look at the plethora of links in Table of Unicode characters to realize that this would be bucking a trend. — Quondum 12:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
We have articles like Turnstile (symbol) as well. I don't have any objection to them, as long as we remember that the main topic for logical subjects is the underlying phenomenon, not the symbol that is used to denote it. In Polish notation they use Π and Σ for the quantifiers, not ∀ and ∃. Only a small number of readers will want a detailed article on the symbol instead of a detailed article about the symbol. By way of comparison, we could also redirect addition to plus and minus signs. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Even List of logic symbols has no references yet, although I have little doubt it is notable. It would be a useful exercise to find sources for this list; then it will be easier to consider the notability of the separate symbols. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

My response

The way I see it, WP:MATH has been told time and time again that the articles under its scope are unreadable, inaccessible, and confusing. In this regard, all the naysayers have ZERO credibility criticizing me. The symbols are the most significant part of the confusion on the part of the average-everyday-reader (remember them?). The template is for the symbols, not the operations. They are each certainly notable individually, having been used commonly in numerous credible, and notable publications. So I can't think of a more irresponsible or foolish idea than removing anything that helps clarify the use of these symbols. If you want to be constructive in this regard, go through and make sure that everything linked from the template is consistent, and make sure to add whatever symbols are missing.Greg Bard (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll nominate {{Logical symbols}} for deletion as it looks like a wider view is required rather than straightforward discussion here. Articles are being set up to support that template whereas I feel there is no reason for the temp
@Gregbard Even brilliant mathematics teachers (I'm not judging by fame or expertise, I'm judging by teaching ability) who I have known routinely get "evaluation" saying they are confusing, not understandable, inaccessable etc. Some of this is attributable to improvable performance, but the lion's share of it is crap. The main fact is that mathematics cannot be explained uniformly to everybody, and that is essentially what WP is doing. It is inevitable there will be complaints. Complaints are especially free-flowing toward mathematics teachers because some frustrated students think it as acceptable to blame the teacher for their particular problems (which are sometimes justified, and very often are not).
So in any case, I think it's perfectly justified saying that there is always room to improve math articles. But I don't think using that tired old complaint as a giant club to silence your critics is going to be very persuasive. Misplaced Pages is a place of many opinions. Rschwieb (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

@Gregbard : How exactly does your way of organizing this information make anything more readable? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have put hatnotes on Universal quantification and Existential quantification directing people to the articles about the symbols.

The articles about the turned A discusses its use as a Japanese title and in traffic engineering, and those have nothing to do with universal quantification, so that's another reason not to redirect universal quantifier to that article. It's perfectly appropriate in an article about a symbol to include those various unrelated meanings, but it would seem inappropriate to include those other topics in a page to which "universal quantifier" redirects. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems an adequate solution per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see why there is a need for a hatnote. In my opinion, the symbol should just be mentioned in the lead and the article linked (which is already the case in both articles). Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The leads already give undue weight to typography. What is a sentence like "Symbols are encoded U+2203 ∃ THERE EXISTS (&exist;, &Exists; · as a mathematical symbol) and U+2204 ∄ THERE DOES NOT EXIST (&nexist;, &nexists;, &NotExists;)" doing in a lead? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Logical symbols

Template:Logical symbols has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dmcq (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I see there's an ANI thread related to this too: Misplaced Pages:ANI#User:Arthur_Rubin_again. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

As for the more mathy question (of Greg) as to whether universal/existential quantification is an expression: the answer is that it can be, e.g. as they are constructed as particular cases of Lindström quantifier. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Another bad redirect

Logical NAND redirects to Sheffer stroke. This was made a redirect back in 2005, probably because the lead treated the operator and the symbol as equivalent (see the last revision before redirect). RockMagnetist (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article Sheffer stroke, it is the correct content with an apparently incorrect article name. It should perhaps have been named Alternative denial, which would have been a suitable name to which to redirect Logical NAND. The current article naming seems to go back many years. — Quondum 07:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Requesting DAB help

Links to the disambiguation pages below could really use the attention of someone with decent math knowledge. Any help at all would be appreciated. If anyone would like to help but is unsure about how disambiguation works, please visit Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation pages with links or Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation for info. Thanks!

-- Fyrefly (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Pythagorean tiling

I have been involved in an edit dispute with an anonymous editor on Pythagorean tiling, concerning issues of image placement, content, and whether the article topic is worthy of being standalone or should be merged into Pythagorean theorem. My opinion is that engaging with this editor in talk pages has been counterproductive, but additional eyes on the page and additional opinions from other editors here would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

An extra pair of eyes is needed here. Tkuvho (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

OJMS

I am not sure how notable this is: The Online Journal on Mathematics and Statistics, OJMS. Tkuvho (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

At present, not at all, since there is no assertion of notability, or indeed anything else, in the article -- indeed WP:CSD A1,A3,A7 all apply. Deltahedron (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Well, as far as google can tell, not very. And no content or sources in the "article". Also the journal webpage mentions that it's indexed on "Misplaced Pages List of Academic Journals" (really!). Based on the user name, seems like there's also the potential for COI there. I'm proposing for speedy deletion on basis of no content. --JBL (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Same issue with some additional contributions by this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Infomesr2012 Tkuvho (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Those lists should have explicit selection criteria to make it clear that only notable items are allowed. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Order of magnitude lists

I question the necessity, validity, and encyclopedic fitness of the numerous articles listing items within orders of magnitude of measurements, such as 1 E+5 m² or 100 nanometres. To me at least, they seem like syntheses of arbitrary information, and some of the article names (e.g. all the {{area}} ones) make no sense as such. Is there a compelling reason to have them as standalone encyclopedia articles? —Frungi (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

you might want to take a look at the old deletion discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1_E0_m. --JBL (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that. Well, I could definitely see this sort of stuff being in the supplemental section or something of an encyclopedia. So how about renaming those "1 E+# m²" pages, and whatever similarly named groups there might be? —Frungi (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Frungi already knows this, but for others new to the discussion: there was a related RFC here that ended up redirecting 1 E+4 m² to hectare. But that's not as feasible for some of the other articles of this type, because they don't all correspond to names of other units. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn’t link to that? Wow, sorry. I’d meant to. Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
There are a lot of pairs of articles like Centimetre (article) and 1 centimetre (list). Not only is the naming convention confusing, with no indication that the latter is a list, but none of the lists are very long. Why not merge the lists into the articles? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Or what about subpages? E.g., Orders of magnitude (length)/1 centimetre, or Orders of magnitude (volume)/1 E+6 m³. The scientific notation names would make sense in that context, and wouldn’t require explanation in the articles (as I feel they currently do). —Frungi (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Subpages are not allowed in article space. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh. Well, they definitely need to be renamed (I think so anyway—does anyone think that 1 E+6 m³ is an appropriate article name?), but I’m not sure what naming scheme would be best. “List of items of area 1 E+6 m³”? —Frungi (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
That would be an improvement. --JBL (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Since a lot of articles are involved, any name change should probably go through Requested moves and WikiProject Measurement should be notified. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

These articles also have homemade previous/next links that work well in a small article but not in longer ones. They probably break some style rule. Succession boxes would be better. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

All right, I’ve posted to WikiProject Measurement about this thread, since that seems to be the appropriate place for this discussion. Sorry for my confusion. —Frungi (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Lists and outlines

Some time last year, there was a substantial debate about the relative merits of "lists" and "outlines"; see, for example, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2011/Sep#Undiscussed_List_-.3E_Outline_moves. I thought we reached a consensus that various mathematical lists should be kept. I've just reverted edits to List of complex analysis topics and Outline of complex analysis; it might be worth keeping an eye on these and similar pages. Jowa fan (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is also
I agree that, unless there is a demonstrable change form the previous consensus, the lists should stay at their present titles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gyula J. Obádovics

The AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gyula J. Obádovics about Gyula J. Obádovics could use some input from members of the project. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Consistent upright d's

It's deja vu all over again. Somebody has been consistently uprighting all the d's again. Tkuvho (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I made them italic (feel free to complain if I missed a few). Yes - in the past I was one who favoured upright differentials (and still do) causing much irritation, but not anymore (on WP). Maschen (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Update: just warned the new editor. Maschen (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The case for all upright "d"s in this context would seem to be that it leaves the italic d available for use as a variable. That has a certain (small?) amount of cogency. It appears that physicists do it that way and mathematicians don't. So the italic version is at least conventional, in something like an article about Lebesgue integration. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually it also matches upright text for functions like "sin"/"exp" etc, and stands out clearer. Maschen (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought the upright d had become conventional for differentiable manifolds and the italic one was used in analysis, basically upright for differentials and italic for straightforward calculus. Dmcq (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
My impression is that the exterior derivative (which appears to be used for manifolds and formally has a distinct definition) uses the upright version, and I'd suggest we stick to this in WP. I doubt whether a clear line can be drawn between physicists and mathematicians on this. There was an informal scan of books (on one of these discussion pages) that the use of the upright d was definitely in the minority. — Quondum 13:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I am a physicist, so that is probably why I prefer them upright. Sorry that I made a mess, I just tried to make them consistent (my preferred style). Now they are consistently italic, better than inconsistent! Martin Ueding (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I think many of us have been through this learning curve, so you're in good company. Sometimes a particular style seems obviously better, but in the end two points seem to emerge: most people can agree on the merit of consistency, and changing a consistent style within an article is frowned upon. There are however several style-related points that are covered by Misplaced Pages guidelines. For this case, see WP:MOSMATH#Choice of type style. — Quondum 17:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Should solutions to logic puzzles be hidden ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Paul venter (talk · contribs) has hidden the Solution sections in the logic puzzle articles four glasses puzzle, bridge and torch problem, wine/water mixing problem and Ages of Three Children puzzle. In an edit summary he says he has done this "to stop any reader from inadvertently looking at the solution". I disagree with hiding article sections like this because I think it impedes the clarity and readability of the article. Do you have an opinion ? I have started a discussion thread at Talk:Four glasses puzzle#Hiding the solution. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This falls under Misplaced Pages:Spoiler. Spoilers are not to be hidden or removed merely because they are spoilers. He should be reverted and told to stop. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
This does NOT fall under Misplaced Pages:Spoiler which currently states "A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists, and thus may "spoil" the experience for any reader who learns details of the plot in this way rather than in the work itself." In time this may change, but at the moment it does not hold anything relevant to this discussion. Paul venter (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that the same justifications for WP:SPOILER apply here. The purpose of our articles is to give people information, not to make it more difficult to obtain. If someone reads about the Monty Hall problem or a logic puzzle, they should expect to see an answer - that is what the encyclopedia is here for. If they want a list of problems to try to solve, they should get a problem book or a list of previous problems from a contest. In particular, if they read a section with the title "solution", they should expect to see the solution there without having to click to see it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
As do I. And even if WP:SPOILER doesn't literally cover this, I think the spirit of it should be applied - I don't see a fundamental difference. Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Solutions should not be hidden. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a puzzle book. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
In that case get a consensus to change WP:SPOILER to include logic problems and then there will be no confusion - but one still has to wonder why there is a "hide/show" feature on WP if it goes against everything an encyclopaedia stands for..... Paul venter (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Show/hide boxes are good for hiding text that the reader may ignore at a first reading, like brief derivations/proofs etc. There is no point to hiding solutions, it's not about testing the reader. Maschen (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
If you read this you'll see that the hide template is used for a lot more than you may think. Is there some source for your opinion on the proper use of the template or did you just invent that? Paul venter (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
They're also mostly used in talk space. I've almost never seen them in article space, apart from navboxes. Anyway no, Paul, in addition to the spirit of WP:SPOILER, which applies here, we're not censored. I'll see that WP:SPOILER is explicit on this. --Cyclopia 08:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not keen on the use of hide anywhere as it assumes one is using Javascript, anyway what's the point of downloading loads of stuff that people don't look at? I sure there must be a better way of dealing with all those hides that people want to stick in navboxes. 10:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
... by Dmcq.
Where on earth does 'censorship' come from? This has nothing to do with morality or ethics, it is simply a way of stopping someone from accidentally seeing the solution - a barrier which is removed by a simple click (clicking is what WP editors and readers do for most of their lives, so that it is not rocket science!) Paul venter (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not about censorship, just that there is no reason to hide anything. It doesn't gain anything, the reader will see the solution anyway if they click open. Maschen (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
We can discuss the correct alphabet soup six ways to Sunday. For instance, I think the most relevant extant guideline is WP:DISCLAIMER, rather than WP:SPOILER or WP:CENSORED. But I think the bottom line is that having content hidden violates the spirit of these guidelines taken as a whole, and no compelling reason exists for doing such a thing in an encyclopedia. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Talking about the "spirit of these guidelines" implies that you are privy to some insider knowledge not explicitly expressed where ordinary mortals can read them. So for the sake of clarity let's stick to the written word and not conjure up hidden meanings. Paul venter (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly one way or another about this, but the tendency (of many users) to rely excessively on the invocation of sacred texts when common sense will do is always frustrating. Quite possibly, Misplaced Pages does not have a guideline that actually addresses the question of whether the solutions to logic puzzles should be hidden. In this case, the right thing to do is not to spend endless posts arguing about precisely which guidelines do or do not apply and how; it's clear from the discussion above that there's a consensus among math editors on this question, and that it's that these solutions should not be hidden. This is true regardless of whether WP:SPOILERS is the "right" guideline or just an analogy. --JBL (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the spirit of these guidelines is quite obvious to most ordinary mortals, there’s no hidden meaning. If I may drop in yet another ingredient to the alphabet soup, asking to “stick to the written word” sounds very much like WP:LAWYERING.—Emil J. 18:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to Paul venter's statement near the beginning of this discussion, WP:SPOILER does mention logic puzzles explicitly: see Other types of spoilers. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, that section has been added there six hours ago.—Emil J. 19:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
So it was. That weakens the argument for sticking to the written word of a policy! RockMagnetist (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll add my voice to the consensus here to not hide solutions. Paul August ☎ 20:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This could (and looks like it will) prevail on and on forever... The changes have been reverted , and there is an unlimited consensus not to hide the solutions. So I closed the discussion now, else we're all just wasting time... Maschen (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

List of translations into set theory

See a discussion at Talk:Constructible universe#Explicit well-ordering of the sets within L.
Should we have an article containing a list of formulas in the language of set theory which are equivalent to simple formulas (like "α+β=γ") used throughout mathematics? JRSpriggs (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Has such a list been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources? If so, then we could write an article about it — please cite the sources. Otherwise it would consititute original research. Deltahedron (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand the point: What is the relation between the question and the link?
About the translation of formulas in some constructive language (I believe that it is such a translation that underlies the question), this is the same thing as coding an algorithm in some programming language (here in a language that is less readable than assembly languages). IMO, the rules for source code in MOS:MATH should apply here: such translations are (or should be) more or less mechanical and do not have any encyclopedic content. D.Lazard (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the relationship between the link and the question: Alan U. Kennington seemed to want to add to Constructible universe a statement of the formula of set theory which well-orders L. As I thought about how one might try to do that, I realized that one would have include set theoretic definitions of addition of ordinals and other common operations. Then I thought that it would be easier to justify the effort of doing that if it were done as part of a new article containing a list of such expressions. Hence my question.
However, I am not at present aware of any sources which could be used for such a list. So as you say, this would probably be barred as OR. I hope that by asking the question here I may find someone who knows of such a source. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I looked at Metamath's list of definitions, mmdefinitions, but that seems to lack adequate explanations for what the defined terms mean. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

&nbsp; and mysterious "latex to html" user

I've recently noticed that 99.241.86.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been going around and converting latex to html in a lot of math articles, and in most cases also modifying the existing html. I'm sort of neutral to this in general, but the main problem is that the edits seem to convert non-breaking spaces &nbsp; into ordinary spaces. This can cause browsers to insert newlines into the middle of formulas. I was surprised at how many articles this user has done this to over the span of several months, and only just now have I notified him/her. I only now became aware of the problem when I saw that this edit from September broke the formatting in the section Hilbert space#Bounded operators, although it is to be hoped that this degree of breakage is the exception rather than the rule. Anyway, I don't know if it's worth fixing the &nbsp; problem retroactively, as that would likely be very time consuming for all but the most stalwart wikignome, but I thought I should at least notify the project. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

In the long run I think the goal should be to make MathJax into the default view for everybody and then convert everything from html to latex again. But the long run is not here yet, sadly. In the short run I think we should use a consistent style within each article, whether it be latex everywhere, html everywhere, or latex for the displayed formulas and html for the inline ones. That means that, once we have a single inline latex formula, as Hilbert space does towards the end of its Definition section, the rest of the article should use latex as well. I do agree that using &nbsp; to prevent bad linebreaks is a necessary part of proper formatting in html formulas, but my guess is that since the anonymous editor seems to be acting in good faith to improve the appearance of these formulas, he or she will take your admonishment seriously. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
You could also point out that the use of non-breaking spaces is recommended in the Manual of Style (WP:NBSP). RockMagnetist (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Russell's Paradox

I don't want to edit the article myself, but is this statement incorrect?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Russell%27s_paradox

'If the librarian doesn't include it in its own listing, it is still a true catalog of those catalogs that do include themselves.'


This makes more sense:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Russell%27s_paradox

Now consider two master catalogs to be held at the city's Central Library:

  1. the first lists all catalogs that contain themselves;
  2. the second lists all catalogs that don't contain themselves.

Clearly the first catalog can list itself; that's no problem. But should the second catalog not list itself? Either way one answers this question leads to a contradiction:

If the second catalog lists itself, then it clearly doesn't belong in the list of catalogs that don't list themselves.
But if the second catalog doesn't list itself, then it does belong in the list of all catalogs that don't list themselves.

preceeding unsigned comment by IP: 188.31.8.184.

What's your point? Isn't that the essence of Russell's paradox?
To break the first statement down (re-wording):
"If the second catalog lists itself, then it doesn't belong in the list of catalogs that don't list themselves."
="If the second catalog lists itself, then it is not an element of the set of catalogs that don't list themselves."
="If the second catalog lists itself, then it is an element of the set of catalogs that do list themselves."
="If the second catalog lists itself, then it does belong in the list of catalogs that do list themselves."
and simultaneously
"But if the second catalog doesn't list itself, then it does belong in the list of all catalogs that don't list themselves."
="But if the second catalog doesn't list itself, then it doesn't belong in the list of all catalogs that do list themselves."
i.e. the second catalogue does and does not belong the list of catalogs that do list themselves... which is a contradiction. Maschen (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


Apologies for the time-wasting, and thanks for the breakdown above -

I had misread part of the Misplaced Pages article (I actually thought that there had been a misprint):

http://en.wikipedia.org/Russell%27s_paradox


For that reason (having mis-read the Misplaced Pages article), to my eyes it mis-matched the ironchariots.org explanation (which I thought to be the clearer of the two explanations):

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Russell%27s_paradox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.8.184 (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Other views wanted

I am appealing to members of the community for comments on my editing, especially as discussed at Talk:Grunsky's theorem and Talk:De Branges's theorem. Another editor has decided that my comments there, and indeed my whole history (all two days of it ) are so awful that not only are all my edits trolling, but I must also be banned and all my edits must be undone. So tell me candidly — are they that bad? If so, away I go at once. But I honestly think they are better than that. Coroner's jury (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics: Difference between revisions Add topic