Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Gen Rel Intro

Introduction to general relativity has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Bad template

template:math fails to provide proper spacing in expressions like 4 ≥ 3. I therefore expunged the template from an article, Dirichlet's energy, I just edited. I will do likewise with other articles in which I find it if this flaw persists. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Spaceing seems fine to me with template: E[u] ≥ 0 handcoded: E[u] ≥ 0. All it does change the CSS style to match that of the <math> tag, which has the effect of using a serif font. Spacing will match that of the new font, which may not have the same point size as a san-serif font. This is set by the browser preference.

I've found quite a few templates for formatting inline equations and collected them in Category:Mathematical formatting templates and nominated one {{Nth}} for deletion. Some of these seem decidedly dodgy.--Salix (talk): 07:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We might actually want to fix the template instead of just removing it from article. Playing around with the css properties "letter-spacing" and "word-spacing" should let us get the desired result. (may be even better then obtainable through normal formatting.) While we're at it we should probably also add "white-space:nowrap", making the use of   unnecessary.

(note that the template only gets used in a handfull of pages of which only a few are in the article name space. So changing the tempate shouldn't break to much and that what is broken should be easy to fix. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

The template itself is not the place to do this. Possible in MediaWiki:Common.css, but test in Special:Mypage/monobook.css first. Applying the serif font happens in a non-wiki page [1]. Care needed as the template also affects <math> tag when its rendered in html. So <math>E[u]>0</math> is formatted using the same css style: $E[u]>0$.--Salix (talk): 09:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at what the template actually does, which is actually very little. It simply adds a span with class="texhtml". This class is currently way under defined in the standard wikipedia monobook (or rather the shared.css), it only adds a serif font and nothing else. This should probably be fixed. (the texhtml is actual the class applied to html generated by <math>, which currently will allow line breaks in the center of equations.)

Unfortantely, any change made to this class has to be done with care because it could break a million articles if done wrong. Still, I think a push should be made to actual have the texhtml class reproduce standard tex math mode behavior.

To summerize, it is not the template that is broken it is just the texhtml class that is bad. (TimothyRias (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC))

Merge Subnet_(mathematics) with Net_(mathematics)?

I have been working on the General Topology articles off and on for some time now. I just noticed that the main article Net_(mathematics) on net convergence in topology does not in itself define "subnet", but rather there is a separate article Subnet_(mathematics). It would seem natural to me to move the material from the latter article into the former article. What do others think? Plclark (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Richard Pinch (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

E8 investigation tool

This article, which is proposed for deletion here, seems to have a couple of links that would be okay as external links in E₈. Someone more familiar with this topic should perhaps take a look at it before it's axed. VG ☎ 15:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be merged into An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything which seems to be about the same thing. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no useful content to merge: the two links are already at An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything and the rest is unsourceable opinion and OR. Geometry guy 18:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability and Director strings

A discussion (so far, very short) has been started on WP:NOTABILITY regarding an article I recently created. I am skittish about that forum, having been burned too many times by the non-science-oriented Wikipedia editors. I have urged that the discussion there be moved to here, as, here, we have both the domain experts, and the general cultural orientation, to deal with such things. If, for any reason, this starts turning into a large discussion, I would further like to move the debate to where the Physics, Comp Sci, and Biology communities can contribute, as these sorts of policy debates can, and do, have impact on all. linas (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your prior experience is making you overly-defensive about this whole thing, which is not good. Also, asking people to move discussions to specialized forums just make it seem like there's some cabal of science editors (I was surprised to see a well-known admin start making these accusations a while ago when CBM asked him to consult relevant content experts about future AFDs).

Articles sourced to several peer=reviewed papers with a decent amount of citations are never AFD-able. I'm sure the NOTABILITY people know that. In this case, it seems like you ran into a fairly inexperienced editor on the director string talk page. There's no need to sound the alarms. In any case, I've never had any problems raised by writing papers about well-sourced recent concepts. For computer science type things, you might need a few more sources than a purely math concept that is published in a well-established journal, but I really doubt people familiar with the notability guideline would try to delete or urge deletion of a concept with even a handful of sources. In fact, people have generally fought back against that when science-minded editors try to delete some crank idea.

One last comment. Director string credits a 2003 paper by three authors, but I find the concept is due to a 1988 paper by two other authors with 34 citations on Google Scholar (one of the citations is the 2003 paper). So it seems the concept is older and more established than you thought, which more or less renders the point moot. --C S (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise seems relevant to the question of notability in specialist areas. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be better to use Talk:Director string for the discussion, and just announce it here. That takes a little load off this board, and it also reduces and concerns (misplaced or not) about cabalism. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership

Please visit Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Easy as pi? to see a discussion about making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership.
-- Wavelength (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the discussion which is rather unwieldy. Is there a specific proposal, if so could you clarify it on the VP page. On the general subject it is something we are well aware of and we do take seriously and strive towards, although it is a huge task. --Salix (talk): 16:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wavelength, if you wonder why there has been no response in the last ten days, have a look at WP:TLDR. It may not apply literally here, but the principle fits. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. I have added sub-subheadings, including some which indicate the presence of proposals. Some sub-subsections are still long, because I decided not to split any post into more than one sub-subsection. Generally, the very long posts were made my me, and I probably would have separated them into smaller posts at that time, if I had anticipated that I would be adding sub-subheadings. I named one subsection "Subsection 0" for consistency with the other numbered subsections. There is already a link to "Subsection 5" from Talk:Mathematics; otherwise, I would probably rename the numbered subsections by increasing each number by one.

-- Wavelength (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(In the second last sentence of my previous message, I corrected "sub-subsections" to "subsections".)

-- Wavelength (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Just so the project people know, one of the proposals in question would mandate lots of silly little boxes saying things like "A knowledge of calculus would be helpful in understanding this article/section/formula." Since the merits and demerits of this have been discussed here before, those of you with strong feelings on the matter may want to make your opinion known at that thread. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Or better still, keep quiet rather than revive the proposal. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi?.
-- Wavelength (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh noes, another war of notations

Curly vs. straight at Talk:Binary_relation#Symbols_for_Binary_Relations. VG ☎ 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Numerical integration and Category:Mathematical components on CfD

Category:Numerical integration is being proposed to moved Category:Numerical quadrature at CfD 16/9 and Category:Mathematical components is proposed to delete at CfD 24/9. Comments welcome. --Salix (talk): 17:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dimensional space

Can anyone make any sense out of the article titled Dimensional space? The first sentence is at best very vague, and the proposed example in the second (which is the last) sentence makes me suspect it may be just nonsense. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be the only thing making non-Newtonian calculus non-trivial. It obviously makes sense, but whether it's interesting or has a serious application is open. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The way to make sense out of it is the usual one - reliable sources. Richard Pinch (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that page poorly, I've now redirected that page to dimensional analysis although the latter needs to be expanded to include use of dimensional analysis in mathematics, statistics,operations research, fractals, dimension theory and dynamical systems. Delaszk (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability of individual papers

I was thinking of creating articles for a few of Emile Lemoine's best-known papers, when I realised that I wasn't entirely sure whether they warranted articles. The notability guideline is as vague as can be about this, and I don't really know how to judge a paper's notability. Something such as Ars Magna clearly deserves an article, while I'm sure we can all think of works that do not. The papers, however, which I'm specifically asking about are Sur quelques propriétés d'un point remarquable du triangle and La Géométrographie ou l'art des constructions géométriques. Anyone's thoughts? Nousernamesleft (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)\

Have a look through Category:Mathematics literature which should give you some idea. --Salix (talk): 20:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly find works which I would deem less important in there, such as Formulario mathematico, so I think I'll go ahead and write the articles. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, whoops, I missed the importance of that work - it's a lot more important than the articles I'm suggesting. I'll keep searching. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

János Bolyai, Non-Euclidean Geometry, and the Nature of Space is a work I would deem less important, so I'll go ahead and write them, then. I can't find any comparable works, however (i.e. by a lesser-known mathematician containing some fairly novel new work, but nothing groundbreaking). Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The mere fact that a paper may qualify as a reliable source which could be cited in one of our articles is not sufficient to justify writing an article specifically about that paper (rather than the topic it is about). However, if there are books or other scholarly papers (history of science, philosophy of science, biography) written about that paper, then the paper itself (as opposed to its subject matter) qualifies as notable and may have an article about it here. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JRSpriggs here. There are many publications that are fine as sources (even well-known in the field) but not themselves the subject of much commentary. We have to avoid the "other stuff exists" rationale; I'm sure that we already have some articles on non-important papers, because of the sheer number of editors and ability to create articles at whim. I think that some factors to consider include whether the paper is discussed in books on the history of mathematics and whether the paper appears in anthologies of classic papers. Here's another example to add to the list: On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Advice taken. I'll see how much I can write on either paper before making a final judgment on whether to create the articles. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Prime_Numbers_-_Binary proposed for deletion

Most !votes decided deletion. Perhaps there's some salvageable material to be merged into prime number. VG ☎ 18:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Tangent between two circles proposed for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tangent_between_two_circles. VG ☎ 13:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been re-named as Tangent lines to circles and updated. Everyone here is encouraged to contribute! :) Willow (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Wikipedia for Schools

The 2008/9 Schools Wikipedia is now available for browsing and feedback is welcome. Downloads start in two weeks so final improvements are possible; this is a big project with millions of users so it is worth doing well. The list of maths topics included is here. We have also included the Maths Portal. The subject list is quite a long list but feedback on what should be included or left out would be good. Also ideally if someone could split the 270 articles into two of three sub lists (preferably Pure Maths, Applied Maths and Statistics or something like that) it would help. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection. --BozMo talk 13:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on the article Non-Newtonian calculus

Please help to resolve this dispute. The articles Non-Newtonian calculus and Multiplicative calculus have come under sustained attack for including references to a self-published work which the opposing editors consider to be invalid as a reference.

The reference concerned is: Grossman and Katz. Non-Newtonian Calculus, ISBN 0912938013, Lee Press, 1972.

Points against:

• The work is self-published.

Points for:

• The work is cited and used as a basis for the peer-reviewed journal articles:

• • Meginniss. "Non-Newtonian calculus applied to probability, utility, and Bayesian analysis", Proceedings of the American Statistical Association: Business and Economics Statistics, 1980.

• • Bashirov, Misirli Kurpinar, and Ozyapici. "Multiplicative calculus and its applications", Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 2008.

• The article Non-Newtonian calculus is based mainly on this work. To remove its main reference is equivalent to destroying the article.

• The page WP:SPS says "a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source." The papers above might not specifically use the word "authoritative" but why would they? The papers were not written for the purpose of conforming to the language of wikipedia's guidelines. Let's not be pedantic here - this is not about the precise words that the papers use. This is about the meaning that the papers convey. It's clear that these papers are based on the work Non-Newtonian Calculus. The work Non-Newtonian Calculus should therefore be valid as a reference.Delaszk (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please read the entire relevant paragraph; I've been quoting the first sentence, while the inclusionists have quoting the last (except for the explanatory phrase, which makes deprecates it.)

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source.

• — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• And the appropriate venue is probably WP:RSN or WT:RS, rather than here or the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well WP:RSN suggests using the talk page of a wikiproject, so here we are.

Another point in favour of allowing Non-Newtonian calculus as a reference is that it is a very short book, it doesn't actually say all that much, there is not much there to verify in the first place and as such the above papers should be ample verification of its reliabilty.Delaszk (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally would not accept a self published article or book. If it is worthy of being a peer reviewed publication then why isn't it one? I could write a book on why the moon is made of cheese, and then publish it. Before you could say "hang on a minute" all the moon landing conspiracy theorists would be saying "The landings could not have taken place for the moon is made of cheese and could never support the weight of a landing module." Self published work is non-reviewed original research! As for Delaszk's point that "it is a very short book", if my book consisted of the line "The moon is made of cheese. QED" would that make it more reliable? Maybe I missing something here... if I am then please tell me.  Declan Davis   (talk)  20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"The moon is made of cheese. QED" - is this backed by third party journal articles? Answer -No. The answer is no, so why did you even ask the question? Hmm ? It is hard to assume good faith on your part when you say things like that. Your misdirection is just an underhanded trick.

"The moon is made of cheese. QED" - is this backed by third party journal articles? Answer -No.

Non-Newtonian calculus - is this backed by third party journal articles? Answer -Yes!

User:Declan Davis overlooks what I said in my previous post in favour of making jokes. Those jokes are engaging in misdirection. The comments are completely overlooking the main fact which is that the two papers above that cite and are based on the book, are in peer reviewed journals. ""The moon is made of cheese. QED" would that make it more reliable?"" - yes if a peer-reviewed journal agreed with that statement. Of course not that any journal article would and yet journal articles were based on Non-Newtonian calculus, so your mooncheese is a complete misdirection. You say: "Self published work is non-reviewed original research!" - actually no it's not - it's not original research if there are peer-reviewed journal articles based on it.

The wikipedia editors who are arguing against inclusion are being absurd with their anti-selfpublishing hysteria, that completely ignores this case, in favour of unthinking, dogmatic, indiscriminate application of guidelines regardless of the particular situation.Delaszk (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Delaszk is taking things too seriously. I could have replaced "the moon is made with cheese" with any other non-humorous yet equally incorrect statement. I just thought that the moon comment might shed light upon the rediculous things that can, and will, be self-published. Okay, so I didn't agree with one of Delaszk's points. That doesn't mean I attacked him, or was disrespectful to him. This is a democracy, people have freedom of speech. It's nothing personal! My point was that anyone can write anything and have it published themselves. As for third party journals, well someone sees that something's been published and they think "well, there's a reliable source". How many people check if a book has been self published or not? In my opinion it's a cyclical argument. I thinkDelaszk may need to relax a little. His unfriendly reply doesn't help anyone. It makes him angry and me sad. You get my point. If you don't agree with it then please don't be so heavy handed in your replies. This is the problem with Wikipedia, as I have been discovering. I think I'll leave it at that. All the best.  Declan Davis   (talk)  22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Self published work is non-reviewed original research! The third party journals based on that work are not original. But the original work is, ermm, original.  Declan Davis   (talk)  22:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

p.p.s. There may be a conflict of interests with Delaszk commenting on this discussion. He sites the non-Newtonian article as one of his favorites. (Again, nothing personal .Delaszk, just being objective).  Declan Davis   (talk)  22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are being completely objective then you will stick to arguing the merits or otherwise of the case rather than bringing my interest into the discussion. If you don't want to get personal then argue the case, not the person.Delaszk (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the COI guidelines, and replace "article" with "discussion page". You are clearly a big fan of the article and as such will fight tooth and nail to keep it, and its sources, standing. This, for me, offeres a conflict of interest with respect to the discussion. Sorry. Declan Davis   (talk)  22:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You are seeking to prevent me from discussing this article, rather than engage the arguments. Shame on you. Back to the discussion - All research is original when it is originally made otherwise it wouldn't be research. It ceases to breach WP:OR when third-parties take up the baton.Delaszk (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Since you say I'm clearly a big fan - it should be noted that I have bent over backwards to be neutral over this article. It was me who put the "Criticism" section into the article. It was me who included references to Volterra and others rather than letting it appear Grossman and Katz were the first to think of multiplicative calculus. Similarly I spun-off multiplicative calculus into its own separate article rather than have it appear multiplicative calculus was developed purely as a result of Grossman and Katz's work. I may be interested in it but I have been neutral.Delaszk (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I started of making my point about the edit war: please scroll up. That was what got you so annoyed. I had to stray from the point in an effort to calm you down in the hope you would take any offence.  Declan Davis   (talk)  15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your point was that you would not accept a self-published source. You also made the point that being short was not a reason for accepting it, as if this was in response to what I had said. This is a misdirection, because shortness of itself being a reason is not what I said. I responded to this misdirection in a forceful manner in order to clearly highlight that the example given was not comparable to the self-published source under discussion. I was not offended by your point, I was arguing against it. The rest of my reply that you called 'heavy handed' was my assessment of the discussion as a whole that has taken place on the article talk pages over the last few weeks.Delaszk (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How I wish my AfD had succeeded! I assumed that obscure nonsense was obviously non-notable...

Delaszk, if there is an edit war, you ought to be able to point to the problematic edits. I've been following the article and commenting on the talk page, and I've seen no evidence at all of an edit war (which, I'm sure you know, has a precise meaning on Wikipedia). I do not believe there is one; if you disagree, please point out the edits! Ozob (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

When I said edit war I was referring to the insertion of verifiability tags on every occurrence in the article of the reference to the book "Non-Newtonian calculus", followed by deletion of those tags, followed by reinsertion of those tags, followed by accusations of vandalism. If this does not qualify as an edit war as such, then it still qualifies as a dispute. To continue in the efforts to be neutral I have rewritten the opening sentence of the article to make it clear that this is a phrase used by GandK rather than a commonly used term. The article is now mainly about GandK's work and as such the book is the main reference.Delaszk (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A bigger issue with the article is that it doesn't conform to WP:FRINGE. This is clearly a fringe theory, which has been roundly rejected by the mainstream mathematical community, despite the best efforts of its closest adherents to promote it by the continual publication of monographs on the subject. The article, however, approaches the subject as though it were a legitimate area of mathematical research. This is clearly assigning undue weight to fringe views, and so is a violation of the neutral point of view policy. Most of the mathematical material in the article needs to get the chop, and the remainder of the article should be devoted to explaining how and why this was rejected. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm entirely in agreement with making sure the article takes a neutral approach.Delaszk (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Dubious reference" at Graph isomorphism

See Wikipedia:ANI#.22dubious_reference_....22.3F. VG ☎ 23:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User Míkka said "The fact that it is repeated in some obscure articles by persons with little credentials in graph theory bears little weight" about the following persons:

1)M. I. Trofimov 2)E. A. Smolenskii 3)V. N. Zemlyachenko 4)N. M. Korneenko 5)R. I. Tyshkevich 6)R. T. Faizullin

7)A. V. Prolubnikov 8)Jitse Niesen 9)David Eppstein 10)Corneil 11)Gotlieb

!!!--Tim32 (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Lambda calculus and friends

Over at WP:CS, I'm wondering what to do about various forms of the lambda calculus...please do drop by and chime in! --mgreenbe (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

math question

How much is 85 billion divided by 200 million?

Is it 425000 or 42500?