Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WPM)
Jump to: navigation, search
Nuvola apps edu mathematics.png
This is a discussion page for
WikiProject Mathematics
This page is devoted to discussions of issues relating to mathematics articles on Wikipedia. Related discussion pages include:
Please add new topics at the bottom of the page and sign your posts.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click on the [show] link to the right of the question.


List of all archives

2009: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2010: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2011: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2012: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2013: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2014: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec

Quotient space (2)[edit]

I have changed Quotient Space (with capital initials) from a redirect to Equivalence class to a redirect to Quotient space (lower-case "s") and changed the latter to a disambiguation page, so far with only two main links and a "see also" link. So:

  • The disambiguation page would probably benefit from more work; and
  • Lots of pages link to the new disambiguation page. Those need to get appropriatedly directed.

Michael Hardy (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that Quotient space should be an article in its own right, not only a disambiguation page. The concept clearly applies (under the name "quotient") throughout abstract algebra, and seems amenable to a general definition. It would naturally link to the articles for the concept as applied in subdisciplines, for example Quotient group, Quotient ring, Quotient vector space, Quotient semigroup, quotient set ... and the like. This is exemplified by the link to Quotient space (disambiguation) in Isomorphism that is a reference to the more-inclusive concept (but not to all the links in the current disambiguation page), when none of the individual articles will do as a target. Quotient space (disambiguation) would then become a disambiguation page rather than a redirect. —Quondum 19:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
On review, perhaps that article is Equivalence class, but somehow with reference to the structure-preserving concept, is that the right name? —Quondum 19:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I added a section to equivalence class, trying to cover enough for a reader to understand both generalized and particular meanings and uses of the term. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett is up for deletion[edit]

Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (2nd nomination). Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

For those following the story, an admin decided to keep. The decision has since been appealed. I will never be able to figure out why people think that content like this is worth having in WP. Rschwieb (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Markushevich basis[edit]

Perhaps the new article titled Markushevich basis would benefit from having one or more additional contributors. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Monotone comparative statics[edit]

Please will someone who can speak mathematics review this article? Fiddle Faddle 08:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Jacobi method[edit]

I was wondering if we have an article on Jacobi iterative method  ? I noticed a new variant of it scheduled relaxation Jacobi method was recently published doi:10.1016/ -- (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

We do have an article on the Jacobi method, and a new section on the recent development has already been created. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks -- (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Geometric Poisson distribution[edit]

Someone more knowledgeable about probability theory may want to check out the new Geometric Poisson distribution article. As I explained on the talk page, I suspect the current version of the article covers a non-notable distribution which shares a name with a vastly more notable one, the latter of which is also called the Pólya-Aeppli distribution. We should rewrite the article so it covers the notable topic. Huon (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 04/07[edit]

Draft:Deformation tensor. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

CS crank[edit]

Just wanted to draw attention to this user, who has recently created two very cranky looking articles (with main citations in MDPI, a predatory low-value journal) and started adding links to them from articles on CS and fractals. --JBL (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AjoChhand Machine. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
...and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frequency fractal. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Affine space, forgot the origin: gibberish or functor?[edit]

Talk:Affine space#"Forgotten which point is the origin": gibberish or functor? Please look. Recent edits are generally constructive, but made by a person closer to physics than math (I feel so), with somewhat different philosophy. As for me, the views of physicists are welcome, but our views should not be exterminated. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a small comment: it's not a good practice to confuse the zero vector with the origin, or is it? A polynomial ring (over a field) is a vector space but you don't really call the zero polynomial the origin. The term "origin" suggests positional concepts; i.e., a choice of basis/coordinates. The definition of "affine space" that I like is that it is an element if a quotient space V/W. The problem with this definition is that it is not intrinsic, but works perfectly otherwise. -- Taku (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Tastes differ. In the theory of Banach spaces it is very usual to call 0 the origin. If I think of the vector space of polynomials geometrically, then indeed I think of 0 as the origin, of constant polynomials as a straight line through the origin, and so on. But maybe this is typical for a relatively small group of mathematicians? I do not know. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Presumably in an encyclopedic article it would be good to have at least a brief discussion of all these different perspectives. --JBL (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
This seems very standard as an intuitive description of an affine space. The zero in a vector space is often called an origin, especially when concerned with the geometry of affine spaces. The article includes a quotation by Marcel Berger including the term "origin" in this context. It should be allowed to stay as it is. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Gibberish, but good gibberish. Let in. YohanN7 (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
May I say that I have a first in mathematics from Cambridge University, and a Ph.D. in mathematics from University of London, so I think I am by training closer to mathematics than to physics. As has previously been remarked by other, the mathematical definition of vector space, which does not mention an origin. It has an identity element, which certainly cannot be forgotten, and which cannot be identified with an origin. It is not appropriate for mathematical articles to be written by people abusing mathematical words. RQG (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
"[A vector space] has an identity element ... which cannot be identified with an origin." This statement is just false, both as a statement about formalisms and as a statement about common usage by [many] mathematicians. --JBL (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Abuse of language has a long and distinguished tradition in mathematical discourse, being frequently employed even by such luminaries of the formalist perspective as Nicolas Bourbaki. The section that you continue to try to delete, without consensus, is clearly not meant to be a formal description anyway (even the title of the section is "Informal descriptions".). Regarding the use of the word "forget", the assignment of the affine space underlying a vector space is indeed an example of a forgetful functor. If one regards vector spaces geometrically, rather than algebraically, it is precisely the functor that "forgets" the origin. This perspective is well-supported by high quality references (and standard use in the mathematical community). Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 11/07[edit]

Draft:1/ ∞. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Classical group[edit]

I have rewritten the article completely. As it was before, it managed to miss the majority of the classical groups, but instead had bits and pieces on groups of Lie type that apparently fancied the authors more than classical Lie groups. I have retained most of that stuff, Classical groups over general fields or algebras, but I think it should go somewhere else. Suggestions? I opened a thread at the article talk page. YohanN7 (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)