Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

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: 3

Please add new topics at the bottom of the page and sign your posts.

Lead image at pi again

There is, once again, an issue about the lead image at the article pi. It was settled several times in the past that the best lead image for that article is the image File:Pi-unrolled-720.gif. However, User:Anythingyouwant (apparently the only editor staunchly opposed to that image) has once again replaced it with something else and has now reverted me to again include his preferred montage of images. The pi unrolled image is one of the best images I have ever seen in a mathematics article, and I feel strongly that it should be included in the lead. It is utterly naive: it communicates precisely what π is, without any need whatsoever for equations or specialized mathematical notation. By contrast, both of the lead images in the current montage require equations and further explanation in order to be understood by a reader. They are less suitable for an immediate understanding of the topic to as wide a readership as possible. I have started a thread at Talk:Pi#Pi unrolled to solicit broader input on this matter. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide links to such previous discussion? I found Talk:Pi/Archive_8#Pi_.22Unrolled.22_animation, which establishes that the animation is better than some picture of a mosaic, but I didn't see anyone asserting that the animation is the best possible image, or any comparisons between the animations and the images currently used. Jowa fan (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This was also the image on the pi article when it achieved GA status as well (see also featured image discussions for various versions of this file). I do not understand the reason it was removed. (There was even a long time when the image was not in the article, or was very poorly placed.) This was never properly discussed, as I see it. It seems to have been one editor's particular objection to the image, whereas the consensus seems to be in favor of it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything relevant at File_talk:Pi-unrolled-720.gif. Can you provide a link to the discussions you're referring to? Jowa fan (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There are various other versions of this image. Maybe look at File:Pi-unrolled.gif Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is (one of the?) featured picture discussion(s). Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Other than my general objection to all moving images, it seems like a good image. However, if it must move without being activated by the user, please at least slow it down a tad. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a slightly slower version at File:Pi-unrolled slow.gif. Hans Adler 09:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Finding the transformations of a matrix

The paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_matrix#Finding_the_matrix_of_a_transformation explains how to find the matrix belonging to a linear map. But how do I find the transformations that belong to a given matrix, which means finding the angle of rotation, scale factor and so on for the basic transformations? In other words: how to decompose a matrix into the basic transformations mentioned in said paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.37.3 (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm reposting your question to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics which is the forum for asking for math help.--RDBury (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment request at Talk:Fourier transform

Opinions of this edit are requested at Talk:Fourier transform#Unreferenced additions of special functions to the table. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

New images at Function composition, Fixed point (mathematics) and other pages

A new image has just been added to the two pages Function composition and Fixed point (mathematics). I think the picture is interesting but potentially confusing. What do other people think? See also Fraction (mathematics) and Translation (geometry). Jowa fan (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think this image by Yves Baelde is confusing. It contains too many elements. It does not make clear where the center is. It gives the (false, I think) impression of being the projection of a three dimensional object. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The author is very prolific but my impression is many of the images are overly complex. The Fraction one is especially egregious since the article itself should be accessible to grade schoolers but the diagram has trigonometry and radical signs. The SVG code is rather abstruse itself since white space has been stripped and there are no comments, despite the info page claim that it was created with a text editor. We do have a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Diagrams and maps but it is currently inactive and so perhaps it should be revived. We should be encouraging people to create more diagrams for articles; I've made a few myself and it's surprisingly difficult and time consuming. I think having a good set of guidelines will help prevent that effort from being wasted.--RDBury (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Right. This is the dilemma: I don't want to revert all of this person's edits, because I'd hate to dampen their enthusiam. But I don't think the articles are better for these pictures. I've removed the image from the Fraction page but left the rest alone for now, hoping for more input from other editors. Jowa fan (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Mixed messages regarding fraction template

Can anyone explain why the use of the {{frac}} template is recommended at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Fractions but proscribed at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Mathematics#Fractions? I note that someone has just added frac templates to fraction (mathematics). Jowa fan (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was because of how the output of {{frac}} looks, but I don't recall the details. I think the discussion was either here or at WT:MOSMATH. Ozob (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I found it: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Mathematics/Archive_1#Fractions. Ozob (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The truth is that there is no good solution, the tfrac idea resembles what you would see in books, but only as long as you aren't using an unusual font size and ignore the fact that the font itself is going to be different than all the other numbers on the page. The example "The value increases from 2 to $2{\tfrac {1}{2}}$," shows how inconsistent it looks. (Exactly how bad it is depends on your browser etc.) The {{frac}} template at least keeps the fonts consistent, "The value increases from 2 to 21⁄2," but it looks amateurish. (No one here is being paid to do this so perhaps it's fair.) A professional web designer could probably kludge something up in HTML with <div> tags or tables but the results might be inconsistent or buggy. So the best solution is use decimals unless it's impossible to avoid it.--RDBury (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion either here or at MOSMATH where the mathematicians we overwhelmingly against this. It might be helpful to dig up the discussion. If I recall, this breaks exponents, so shouldn't be used in math pages. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Literature of phase boundaries

Literature of phase boundaries is a new article. The format---including getting the software to number the references, if that is appropriate in this case---could use some work by someone skilled in Wikipedia's conventions for this sort of thing.

Are there particular lists that should link to this?

And which articles should link to this? The links still need to be put there. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this should be an article. GBooks will give you a list of book on a particular subject, so there's no need to copy their results here. Perhaps trim it down to the best half-dozen and add make it a 'Further reading' section in the main article.--RDBury (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be intended to be a list of books. Some of the items listed are books. Some of those are books of collected papers. I thought it was supposed to be the most important works in the subject. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the title is wrong. There looks to be an adequate literature of evolution of phase boundaries that might qualify as mathematical physics. The whole area seems to suffer from neglect: phase boundary, interface (chemistry), interface and colloid science, ... Those might fall into different disciplines. The topic which is essentially about PDE modelling where that works is probably legitimate enough. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Table of Fourier transforms

We have no article titled Table of Fourier transforms. Does it exist under another title to which that should redirect? If not, should it be created? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I would think a table of Laplace transforms would be at least as useful in the real world. We have a table but it's a section within the main article. I'm also thinking use "List of ..." instead of "Table of ..." for titles.--RDBury (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could redirect it to Fourier transform#Square-integrable functions. And see #Comment request at Talk:Fourier transform above. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that List of Fourier transforms already exists and is a redirect to Fourier transform#Tables of important Fourier transforms. I concur with the sentiment, that there should exist a separate list article for the table of Fourier transforms. For this we should establish a set of inclusion criteria (a comprehensive list of all Fourier transforms is not practically possible or desirable). Please comment at Talk:List of Fourier transforms.TR 09:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Laguerre polynomials

The article Laguerre polynomials contains vast lists of unreferenced identities, virtually all of which were added by User:A. Pichler, a long-time problem editor of special functions articles (that I have alerted the project about before, but failed to generate sufficient interest at the time). I'm not sure what should be done with it, but it's a complete disaster at the moment. It's almost tempting to roll the article a few years back in time to the last "clean" version. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I just felt maybe someone should respond (and I'm bored teaching). I have only undergraduate-level understanding of specical functions, but, in principle, can we deal with this sort of issues in the same way we deal with, say, POV-pushing? That is, demanding "reliable/mainstream" references so forth. -- Taku (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously references for this kind of thing are a must. I'm just wondering whether it's best to nuke this unreliable ORish content, or to plaster it with fact tags on the remote chance that someone will actually try to fix it. (We have always lacked good editors interested in improving special functions articles.) I'm leaning toward the former, although I feel that thus is sort of an unwikipedian attitude. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I went through and added cites for the stuff I could find in A&S. It's the same old story though, when most of the article is unreferenced it's hard to complain about people adding more to the pile. The article could use a rewrite, but I think the best approach would be to start with a good standard reference and build the core of a good article before removing what's there.--RDBury (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Catenary approaching GA standard

I've been working heavily on the catenary article and feel it's nearly ready for a GA review. I removed most of the unreferenced material but there is one "citation needed" left that I'd like to keep, see Talk:Catenary#Simple suspension bridges, citation needed. The article is still incomplete in that there are aspects of the subject that could still be added, but completeness is not one of GA criteria. What I'm looking for is an unbiased pair of eyes to look over the article to verify my assessment of GA readiness, kind of a pre-review review. Comments will be appreciated, please reply on the article talk page.--RDBury (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

{{math}} versus <math>

This edit changes almost all the <math> tags to {{math}} -- is this an accepted standard? --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit: sorry, I don't know how to make that link work; it's the 06:39, 20 September 2011 edit by User:No such user to Angle trisection that I'm talking about. Joel B. Lewis (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit. --Zundark (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever come to a real agreement on this. Personally, meaning no offense to the people who worked hard on it, I absolutely loathe the {{math}} template. It's true that it's probably a little better than inline PNG rendering of LaTeX (the <math> tag), because it doesn't have the size disparity that you sometimes see with that. But it dumps serif fonts into the middle of running sans-serif text, which I think looks hideous.

If for some reason people think that we need serif fonts for mathematical text, then either we should always display that text, or we should use CSS to change the entire article into a serif font. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that right now, both styles are considered acceptable. As with all such cases, arbitrary changes from one style to the other are discouraged. Consequently I've reverted the above edit. Ozob (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop referring to those edits as "arbitrary". I gave thorough explanation why I made it, and the difference is quite visible. No such user (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel as Trovatore does on this matter. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thangs Zundark. In addition to what Trovatore said, I find the lack of italicization with {{math}} unattractive. Also, it seems to me that if, in the future, some actually decent way of displaying math on Wikipedia is developed, it is more likely to rely on LaTeX than on HTML, so that switching to HTML-based formulae is probably counter-productive in the long-run. Joel B. Lewis (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, in this particular case, the ugliness with {{math}} is much more subtle. I don't have personal preference for either style, but having inconsistent rendering within the same paragraph is just awful (see Talk:Angle trisection#Formula style), so, as I noted in the edit summary, I did not change that arbitrarily (and it took some effort to convert). I agree that {{math}} is imperfect, but in this case it is so much better than <math>. If you disagree, I don't mind, but then at least force all formulas in the text into big LaTeX format. Mixed-style is, as anywhere, so unprofessional. No such user (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

@Trovatore: "But it dumps serif fonts into the middle of running sans-serif text, which I think looks hideous." -- but that is exactly what <math> does as well, when the formula is rendered small. For me (Firefox 6 on Windows 7), the following two texts look identical, except for spacing and italics, and use the same font:

$4y^{3}-3y-1/2=0$ (as result of <math>4y^{3} - 3y - 1/2 = 0</math>)

4y³ − 3y − 1/2 = 0 (as result of {{math|4y³ − 3y − 1/2 {{=}} 0}})

No such user (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to italicise the template to get them the same as in:

4y³ − 3y − 1/2 = 0 (as result of {{math|4''y''³ − 3''y'' − 1/2 {{=}} 0}})

I prefer {{math}} when the math is inline and simple as it doesn't suddenly make things into grotty looking inline pngs on me. (and note what <math> has done to the fraction here, you need extra messing around to get that right) Dmcq (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, OK, I'll italicize as necessary, no problem; the amount of wikicode is roughly the same for both versions. I'm not sure I like how that <math> fraction looks like; anyway, we can't have identical rendering, the point is to get it to be acceptable. As for your preference -- exactly my thoughts. No such user (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Earlier you mentioned forcing all inline formulas to render as PNGs. I think this is a really bad idea. In general inline formulas should only very rarely ever appear by default as PNG images. You can use <math> inline, but only for formulas that don't render as PNG with default user settings (the WP:MOSMATH says that this may be used for "very simple formulae"). For more complicated formulas, basic html formatting should be used. (Wrap it in {{math}} if you must, but I don't see this as an essential requirement.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The formulas are simple, but some of them used <math>60^\circ</math>, producing png $60^{\circ }$, so I converted them all to {{math}} instead. I think that's the best interim solution for the article, because one way or another they should all render equally, not in a text/png mix. Compare this and this. No such user (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer <math> because in works in all wikipedias, which is a plus for people editing outside en.wp as well. Moreover I really dislike the idea of breaking up a unified approach (single method) to deal with all math rendering just to achieve (subjective) "slightly better" display results in eyes of some. Having several methods unnecessarily complicates the handling by humans or machine alike and it breaks the ability to easily deploy future improvements of the rendering process to all math formulas within WP. Also many math editors probably prefer latex notation, since that is the lingua franca of sorts for math formulas anyway. --Kmhkmh (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What WP:MOSMATH says

I think it's fairly clear about the issue, emphasis mine:

“ Having LaTeX-based formulae in-line which render as PNG under the default user settings, as above, is generally discouraged, for the following reasons.

• The font size is larger than that of the surrounding text on some browsers, making text containing in-line formulae hard to read.
• Misalignment can result. For example, instead of e^x, with "e" at the same level as the surrounding text and the x in superscript, one may see the e lowered to put the vertical center of the whole "e^x" at the same level as the center of the surrounding text.
• The download speed of a page is negatively affected if it contains many images.
• HTML (as described below) is adequate for most simple in-line formulae and better for text-only browsers.

”

and later, emphasis mine:

“ Either form is acceptable, but do not change one form to the other in other people's writing. They are likely to get annoyed since this seems to be a highly emotional issue. Changing to make an entire article consistent is acceptable.

However, still try to avoid in-line PNG images. Even if you use <math>L^p</math> throughout the article, use ''L''<sup>&infin;</sup> to get L^∞ rather than using the LaTeX-based <math>L^\infty</math> to get $L^{\infty }$, which doesn't always look good.

”

No such user (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's talking about inline HTML. It doesn't say anything about {{math}}. My objection is to {{math}}, not to inline wikimarkup/HTML (e.g. using '' to italicize variables). --Trovatore (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think using {{math}} distinguishes between the English text and the mathematics better and is much more consistent with <math> which I always use for any standalone maths even when the maths is simple. For instance {{math|''a''}} and <math>a</math> give a and $a$ whereas ''a'' gives a. You seem to want to make the maths expressions fade into the text rather than be easy to distinguish so basically what you see as a disadvantage is I think a big advantage. Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with them being easy to distinguish. That's what italics are for. Don't change fonts though. That's just ugly.

For the moment I think the best advice we can give on using inline math is, if you can possibly avoid it, just don't. Display it as long as the results are not completely ludicrous. It just causes too many problems with the current setup.

I'm not sure what would be better. In an ideal world, maybe I'd like to change the whole of Wikipedia to a serif font, but that's not in the cards. Given that Wikipedia is foredoomed to be in sans-serif, I think we should think about whether mathematics in sans-serif is really so bad. The Beamer (LaTeX) folks don't seem to think so, and Beamer seems to have become the de facto standard for mathematical slide presentations. --Trovatore (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't change fonts though. That's just ugly.. Sorry, but that is a bit contradictory, at least with the current setup: both <math> and {{math}} produce the same font. And, as Dmcq, I find it desirable to use the same style for formulas throughout; I don't mind if they differ from the surrounding text by typeface only; on the contrary, I find it even desirable. Just as, for example, in articles about programming we use <code></code> tags for keywords, even when inline.

As for Serif font, here's a tip: if you prefer Serif fonts, you can adjust it in Firefox using Tools/Options/Content/Default font, and for other browsers there is certainly an option too. I set mine to Lucida Sans Unicode (which has an additional bonus that it doesn't distinguish hyphens and en-dashes, everyone's favorite target of edit warring these days). No such user (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

They might produce the same font, but <math> is explicitly not supposed to be used inline.

It's not a matter of what I prefer to see for myself. We're trying to get an appealing layout for articles in the project. Mixing fonts inline is ugly, not just on my screen but on everyone's. --Trovatore (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Correction, it is your opinion that mixing fonts inline is ugly. Others clearly disagree.

On a more factual basis, you claim that "I'm fine with them being easy to distinguish. That's what italics are for." Not all math is set in italics, italics are used for variables only.TR 11:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It is my opinion, which is shared by plenty of people. I'm no expert on typography, but "don't mix fonts" is pretty basic, one of the first things they'll tell you in any course. --Trovatore (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Not by me and I agree with talk that uniform handling of all formulas throughout the article is preferable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems there are a number of people who do seem to feel pain or something close to it when different types of font are mixed or there's some problem with the design of the font. I don't get it myself but I try and follow their styles for web pages for instance. I really do much prefer to distinguish the maths from the running text well also I distinguish code from text so they can be handled as separate units rather than mixed in as more words of the running text. I see x as a maths symbol rather than as the letter x in italics. Associating x with x which is as it looks in the standalone maths is associating a letter with a symbol and is extra work for me. There are some font types which have both serif and non-serif forms especially so they can be mixed easily without this bother but we're stuck with the basic web fonts for probably the next five years at least even though most browsers support downloaded fonts nowadays. I think basically the problem boils down to if we are going to have inline maths which of these ways should prevail? And if we want to distinguish the maths is there something that can be done to make it better for people who wince at the difference? Dmcq (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's take an example: Here's what the top of the e (mathematical constant) article looks like on my screen:

Now, to me, this looks totally unprofessional. Other people can disagree with my aesthetic judgment, I suppose, but I think this will be a common reaction.

I am somewhat curious to know if it looks less bad on other people's screens. I am using the default Firefox on Ubuntu 10.04. --Trovatore (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I will readily agree that using {{math}} in article titles is one step too far. But I find the layout of the lead section, with numerous embedded formulas in Times New Roman, just fine. No such user (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Times New Roman? What's that? Please, considering WP's origin as the "open source encyclopedia", let's not give preferential treatment to proprietary platforms.

I don't see any real difference between the title and the text. The title was just a convenient place to show how bad it looks. --Trovatore (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Trovatore. e is supposed to be an italicized letter "e". But in e (mathematics) it's not just an italicized "e", it's in a different font; that makes it jump out at you (just like the Weierstrass $\textstyle \wp$). It may be a nice-looking e, but it clashes with everything else. I think the article looks better with everything in the same typeface. Compare the present version to this, where I removed {{math}} from the lead and initial caption. Nothing clashes. I think it's much nicer. Ozob (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it looks bad at all. Which goes to show that this is simply a matter of opinion/stylistic preference. Long standing tradition on wikipedia is to leave stylistic choices of this type to the judgment of the editors of a particular article, and only require that the editors make a consistent choice within an article. I suggest we do the same here.TR 11:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks better with the {{math}}. It is the maths constant e rather than the letter e in italic. And at the very least it should be consistent within an article which is what that does. Dmcq (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editor on Going up and going down

There's an anon editor at 180.216.76.63 who is refusing to reference a statement, and is instead insisting on including his proof in the article. I reverted his changes twice but he rereverted both times. I asked him to view MATH:MOS#Proofs and WIKI:NOR but I only got these classic responses:

• I worked hard on this and the proof is short so leave it be it's an important result you don't know how to welcome new users
• A proof doesn't need a reference you can check it without I will undo your edits and you will not like it leave me alone
• you're probably so mathematically illiterate that you don't understand the proof "rscbnewtic"

Would appreciate if someone else would help remove the proof and keep this guy from reposting. Thanks, Rschwieb (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The same editor is now apparently stalking my edits, since he recently reverted changes I made at integrally closed domain and then rewrote the same portions to his own liking. Can I revert these? The new edits don't correct or contribute anything, they seem to be entirely spite-driven. I would also appreciate any other advice of steps I can take to censure this person, because this is the first time I've encountered such extreme behavior. Thanks again, Rschwieb (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think at the point at which you're looking for excuses to revert something that didn't do harm to the article, you should take a step back :). Obviously, the random insult in the edit history is there just to goad you -- why let it? (By the way, it is extremely frustrating for new editors to have a correct proof removed for lack of a citation -- I wish that other editors would request the citation first, with and explanation of wikipedia policy on this point and without removing the proof initially. Of course, this doesn't excuse the anon editor's behavior in this case at all.) Joel B. Lewis (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, reacting to it is obviously what he wants. Actually I think I could make a case that his edits were detrimental, but you're right, it's not THAT important. Months from now when he gives up in frustration/is banned there will be plenty of time to review the page. I wanted to explain the policy politely and in detail but I was hampered by his anon status. I would like to do that via the discussion page, but now I think that would also provoke this person. I would be grateful if someone would attempt to address this person and explain. Here's hoping he fades away... Rschwieb (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Here's hoping he fades away ..." I wouldn't be surpised if you're the first one to be banned from editing here. But I don't ***HOPE*** that it will happen. I'm a nice guy. You, on the other hand, seem agitated with me and don't want to reason with me. Your edits are bad English style so were reverted. Simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.76.63 (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed using Special:Contributions/180.216.76.63 that several people have accused you of being a troll. I don't think you're a troll. But let me give you some advice (you can take it or leave it): Your style is too abrasive. You call yourself a "nice guy" but you don't come across that way.

When I was in school, I heard one my professors, D., admit that he did not like one of his colleagues. This surprised me, because D. was a very nice person. But D. went on to say that his solution was to not serve on committees with this person. Consequently they never interacted. To this day, I don't know who it is that D. didn't get along with.

I have long taken D.'s example as a model. I suggest you do the same. Ozob (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks for the advice Ozob. Only two people have accused me of being a troll: rschwieb and kinu so I wouldn't say "several people have accused me of being a troll". You're free to think of "nice guy" as you like but what I mean is that I don't fight with anyone unless provoked. Tell me frankly, Ozob, do you think it's fair for someone (Rschwieb) to say "Here's hoping he fades away ..."/"... when he is banned"? Even a nice guy can only take so much; even the nicest person in the world won't put up with constant harrassment/insults. Now D. (as you call him) only had one person to ignore you see. But many people seem to be against me here. It's hard to ignore people when they're threatening to ban you. I'm avoiding rschwieb but I needed to defend myself here.

At the end of the day, I've got better things to do than to argue with empty matters on a small scale forum. I doubt anyone is going to read "Going up and Going Down" or that anyone here in "Project Mathematics" is actually a mathematician (and even if they are, I highly doubt anyone of some calibre contributes here; and no I don't hold double standards and I'm not claiming I have high calibre either; I'm just someone who likes to contribute math to the world). It's pretty clear that rschwieb is wasting his time with trivialities but hey I'm not one to judge as I'm doing the same here. So I'm not going to comment here anymore I've made my point. I will check for responses to my message and maybe thank you for it but I'm not interested in this discussion. I made an edit and that's all I can do. I can't force people to appreciate me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.76.63 (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

They've just restored the proof again, but with a more polite and constructive edit summary. Possibly they've glanced at their talk page since last time. It appears that the proof isn't WP:OR, but is by Matsumura. If they can tell us exactly where it comes from (I think Matsumura wrote two commutative algebra books), are you happy to see it remain in the article? Jowa fan (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The irritating thing from my PoV is the lamentable tendency of so many "mathematicians" to want to cram a proof into as tiny a space as possible (as though scared of wasting paper - but the medium is no longer a wartime exercise book, we have as much room as we like). It's unreadable the way it's presented. Needs line breaks in it. --Matt Westwood 11:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Proofs for a previous discussion and possible solutions. Jmath666 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The proof doesn't seem especially illuminating to me. The chain of implications "flat"->"faithfully flat"->"surjective morphism of spectra" seems basically to be accepted without comment. The rest of the proof has little content. So I think the article is better off without this proof, although it's possible someone can clarify it to make it worthy of inclusion (Jowa fan, perhaps?) Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(Duplicated from Jowa's talk page) "Hi Jowa and 180.216.76.63. I'm glad to see a reference was finally found and that the result can be included, however the main issue still hasn't been addressed. Our Manual of Style directs us to "[not] include them when they serve only to establish the correctness of a result". To keep the article well maintained for everyone (including non mathematicians) the proof should now be at least moved to be a footnote, if not completely removed. The correctness of the proof is irrelevant, this is just a matter of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.

I'm sorry for the frustration I must have caused you 180.216.76.63, but I wasn't acting without reason. If you took time to read MOS:MATH#Proofs, you would know I was just trying to uphold the set standard."

What opinions do we have on moving the proof? I wouldn't mind compromising it as a footnote. However, the reference really should be enough. It's not the first time a new person accidentally put a lot of effort into something that turned out to be not really appropriate, and that's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean we have to force ourselves to accomodate it. Rschwieb (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that someone has worked on the material hard doesn't justify its inclusion. In this particular topic, however, I tend to think having some proofs/short arguments might be a good idea. As I understand, the basic question is how to prove going-up/down, not from the pedagogical point view but from the mathematical point view. That is, one (e.g., Kaplansky) often studies whether various conditions are necessarily for going-up/down/inc/lying over. Proofs seem to be integral part of this sort of investigation. One can cite statements with just references, but doing so with giving what techniques/arguments are used is probably more illuminating. Having said, it is possible that maybe a wikipedia article on this topic have to be exceptional (since it's encyclopedia.) -- Taku (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Our manual of style represents a workable compromise that is consistent with the general guidelines. It is best to follow the MOS, particularly when another editor insists on it.

WP:MOS prohibits the use of "hidden" templates on main pages, because of issues with persons with disabilities, I believe. The French WP allows hidden-like templates, which allow readers to skip proofs. (Perhaps we could find a template that was more accomodating to persons with visual impairments?)

It would be best for the IP editor 180.216.76.63 to strike-through his insults, which reflect poorly upon himself.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Matsumura's Commutative Algebra is relatively rare. It would be better to refer to his Commutative Ring Theory, which is widely available. I would suggest following Sharpe's statement and proof, which avoids flat extensions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I second this suggestion, although ideally a proof sketch should suffice. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Opposites theorem: not notable?

I've just added an {{Unreliable sources}} tag to the page Opposites theorem, since I wasn't aware that this fact had a generally accepted name, and the only source given is self-published. I'm not convinced that it's even notable enough to deserve an article. Jowa fan (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's covered well enough at Even and odd functions. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

None of the gbooks hits for "opposites theorem" are related to this fact. It appears to be a neologism.TR 13:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've now WP:PRODded the article. Jowa fan (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

OEIS templates

I noticed that we seem to have a bunch of different templates for OEIS links, namely {{OEIS}}, {{OEIS2C}} and {{OEIS url}}. I don't really see the benefit of having three different templates for essentially the same purpose. Personally I would like to see a consensus to use only one of these templates and perhaps abandon the other two, but would like to hear what other people think. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think {{OEIS}} is meant to used in normal article text, {{OEIS2C}} is an abbreviation that can be used in tables, and {{OEIS url}} is for when only a link is needed. OEIS2C and OEIS used to be more different than they are now as the {{OEIS}} template was changed recently; it was something like "(sequence  Axxxxxx in OEIS)" but the OEIS part was replaced by an icon. The OEIS url one is rarely used so it could probably be replaced by OEIS2C and retired. OEIS and OEIS2C are used heavily and I think the problems caused by trying to get rid of one of them would outweigh the benefits. The main problem I can can see is for people trying to figure out which is meant to be used when, and the documentation could be improved a bit on that score, but templates are cheap and over all I think having a choice is better than not.--RDBury (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the name "OEIS2C"; hard to type and not very meaningful in the source. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that back in the dark ages (2005) when the template was created it was intended OEIS2C be used for the second cite and after, which is where the 2C comes from. I don't think it's being used much for that today though. The template is used in several hundred articles though, so moving could be a problem.--RDBury (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems the main difference between {{OEIS}} and {{OEIS2C}} is that in the first case the word "Sequence" appears in front of the link. Is that really needed? If not, we should perhaps request a bot task to replace all instances of one template with the other one and then delete the unneeded template. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the icon needs to go: (sequence  12345). It's barely decipherable, and looks like a Chinese Unicode character that doesn't render properly. It communicates less effectively than the old link. Moreover, this is a template that is supposed to be used inline; I believe there is something somewhere in the MoS about avoiding inline images. I don't think IAR applies here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that there doesn't seem to be a consensus for this change at all in the first place, I think it should perhaps be changed back to its original appearance (with the simple OEIS wikilink). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please could someone check a query on the addition table on the Balanced ternary talk page

Someone has queried the addition table on the Balanced ternary talk page. I believe that the table as given in the article is correct, but another comment makes me think that I have misunderstood the meaning. Please could someone check it. -- Q Chris (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It is OK. +1 + +1 = +2 = +3 + −1 = +1 · 3 + −1. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances

I just created this page: An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances.

I'll add a lot to it unless someone beats me to it. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternative location for proof at Going up and Going down

Taku's last post suddenly made me realize there is a good alternative to deletion. That proof would be excellent material for Localization_of_a_ring#Applications, since it showcases the exactness of the localization functor. That section I linked could use some more material anyway. This would be a good alternative to deletion!

Secondly, for the record, I have never accused 180.216.76.63 of being a troll. I wrote what I wrote because of the inexcusably rude behavior of 180.216.76.63 at the time. Rather than discuss, they immediately engaged in personal attack and a single instance of edit stalking. I had a hard time believing 180.216.76.63 would ever participate in civil discussion at all. But since then he/she has shown willingness to cooperate, and so it turns out I spoke too soon. I'm sorry 180.216.76.63 for my rash comments, and I generally retract them.Rschwieb (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Digiarea links

I recently reverted some links to the site digi-area.com, if not spam then at least spammy and from an apparent SPA. Might be a good idea to keep an eye out for similar links.--RDBury (talk) 10:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Consistent Notation For The Euclidian Vector Norm

We have two competing notations for the vector magnitude $\|x\|$ and $|x|$ (ignoring, for brevity, the competing notations for how to identify $x$ as a vector). What would it take to come to a consistent notation across all Wikipedia pages?KlappCK (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid this is an infeasible task (and indeed, both notations are common in the literature). It would be already a good achievement to avoid the two meeting at the same article. Sasha (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Consistency across Wikipedia is not just infeasible, but undesirable in my opinion. Many areas have good reasons for using different notations. Some notations that make sense in one context would be confusing in others. Obviously, we should strive to be consistent within an article, whenever possible. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't really the answers for which an idealist would hope. Whatever happened to WP:SOFIXIT? In what context is it confusing to use one over the other?KlappCK (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In applied analysis, the vector norm of (say) the gradient is usually written with one bar, and an energy norm with two. In functional analysis, the norm in an abstract normed space is usually written with two bars. In linear algebra, I've seen both (and even one with three bars) for different matrix norms. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)A change which would affect dozens of article should really have some sort of consensus. In the last month or so we've had discussions on arsinh vs. arcsinh, the definition of limit ordinal and the spelling of Tikhonov; the only thing that was really established is that it's more or less impossible to get people to agree on a choice on things like this. I think a good reasons to be consistent from article to article is to cut down on people "correcting" each other notation when it's really one preference over another. I can see the point about different notations being standard in different areas though. It would be nice to find a compromise though because inconsistent notation occurs in closely related articles as well and is all the more confusing in such cases.--RDBury (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Insisting on a choice of consistent notation for ensuring social harmony seems to have the opposite effect in practice. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it tends to lead to yet another spelling/citation/notation war, which is ultimately of little benefit to readers, produces a bad climate between authors and distracts/diverts energy from more important issues such as fixing content (rather than fixing marginal format issues).--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I definitely don't want to incite an edit war. Perhaps it would be beneficial to establish a dichotomy (or even a trichotomy, as suggested by Sławomir Biały,) of use cases and attempt to make them use consistent across related pages (as noted by RDBury), or at the very least, use this information to establish some indication of context in our list of mathematical symbols? As of the time of this post, the single bar and double bar notations have overlapping definitions, which, in my mind, would be a source of confusion for a novice mathematician. Of course, maybe I'm just being an idealist, but I believe that this difference in notation is much less trivial than "gray" versus "grey".KlappCK (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that's possible, but from my perspectuve there is only need for consistency within one article and the meaning of the notation should be "obvious" to readers from the context.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, Kmhkmh, but what is not obvious to (novice) readers, in my opinion, is why the notation changes between pages that cross-reference each other. Article X uses notation A, but internal links on that page to a closely related subject, Article Y, uses notation B. Alas, I suppose I'm fighting a losing battle trying clarify notation for persons who are otherwise unable to infer the meaning from the context of use on each (individual) page.KlappCK (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Shapley–Folkman lemma at FAC

The article, initiated by David Eppstein, has received many helpful reviews from this project already. The FA project would benefit from mathematicians' insights, from simple support/oppose judgments, to short copy-editing volunteering, to more ambitious commenting/editing.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Vector measure: Product function

Is there a simpler discussion of product function, than the universal definition given in product (category theory)?

UPDATE  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In advanced measure-theory, the Shapley–Folkman lemma has been used to prove Lyapunov's theorem, which states that the range of a vector measure is convex. Here, the traditional term "range" (alternatively, "image") is the set of values produced by the function. A vector measure is a vector-valued generalization of a measure; for example, if p₁ and p₂ are probability measures defined on the same measurable space, then the product function (p₁, p₂) is a vector measure, where (p₁, p₂) is defined for every event ω by

(p₁, p₂)(ω)=(p₁(ω), p₂(ω)).

Robert Berger (mathematician) at AfD

The article Robert Berger (mathematician) has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Berger (mathematician).  --Lambiam 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mathematical function templates

Category:Mathematical function templates is undergoing a bit of a cleanup at the moment with quite a few of the templates there being sent to TfD. These include several templates for performing specific calculations: {{Oom}}, {{Absolute value}}, {{Sgn}}, {{Root}}, {{Addition}}, {{Add optional}}, {{Subtraction}}, {{Factorial}}, {{Rangemap}}. See the discussion at Category talk:Mathematical function templates.--Salix (talk): 06:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Signature of a quadratic form

Hi, Signature (quadratic form) and Signature of a quadratic form have recently been redirected (by AvicBot) to Signature (disambiguation), and I was wondering if they should point instead to a specific article. Thanks, --JaGa^talk 06:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the target to Sylvester's law of inertia since that article defines term. Undo or update if it's not the right choice.--RDBury (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated to Metric signature as the article on such signatures (and if it didn't exist it would be worth creating).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Such a simple concept as the signature of a quadatric form certainly need not point to an article involving tensors on manifolds. I've added a couple sentences to quadratic form and redirected these there. RobHar (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hypercomputation article

Hypercomputation article deeply troubles me. It is portrayed as if this kind of "computation" is meaningful from the viewpoint of general applicability. And also, it is a misunderstanding of Turing's oracle machines, that was supposed to be just a theoretical device for proofs. It is not supposed to be a model of a physically plausible machine, a mechanism that requires infinite resources is not a real mechanism, it is a fictional one. That's why it's called an "oracle". I would like to see this point stressed over and over again with the relevant quote from Turing's paper. It does not concern me the least bit whether an article about this was published in Science. Most certainly the author of that paper is an ignoramus in the vein of Copeland, and it does not warrant Wikipedia'a clearance of a metaphysical word salad as if it were a scientifically respectable idea. Exa (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite so bad, though it does need work. Here's one thing I changed:

So, if machines capable of performing hypercomputational supertasks are taken to be physically realizable, they may be considered pragmatic counterexamples to the [Church-Turing] thesis.

to

So on the Church–Turing thesis, machines capable of hypercomputational are not physically realizable.

These are saying the same thing, but I flipped it around so it was more clear that they're not expected to be physically possible. (I'm not sure I like the paragraph on "they'd take infinite time/energy so they don't exist" since some models of hypercomputation, like CTC, would seem to be counterexamples—though of course we don't think they're possible.)

CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Separable extension

I write to seek consensus that the theory of separable algebraic extensions should be discussed in Separable extension. User:TakuyaMurata recently made a number of edits to the article which focused almost exclusively on the general theory of separable algebras over a field without putting any weight on the case of algebraic field extensions where the notion of separability is fundamental to Galois theory.

Of course, User:TakuyaMurata's additions to the article were very good because non-algebraic separable extensions are important in commutative algebra and algebraic geometry. However, my concern is based on WP:UNDUE; the theory of separable algebraic extensions is more fundamental in mathematics (largely because of Galois theory) than the theory of general separable extensions and weight should be placed on the former in Separable extension. In particular, separable algebraic extensions should at least be discussed in Separable extension; User:TakuyaMurata removed this discussion.

I have no objection to User:TakuyaMurata's additions to the article on Separable extension; I only have objection to that which he has removed from this article. I feel that both the theory of algebraic separable extensions and the theory of non-algebraic separable extensions should be discussed in Separable extension with weight placed on the former hence the current revision of the article. User:TakuyaMurata's edits remain as well as the general theory of algebraic separable extensions.

However, I think User:TakuyaMurata feels that only the general theory of separable extensions (without any weight on the theory of algebraic separable extensions) should be discussed hence his revision of the article. He has not explained the reasons for his edits except that he has created a new article Separable algebraic extension discussing solely the theory of algebraic separable extensions. I do not strongly object to having two different articles but I think it is far more appropriate to have one article discussing both aspects of the theory especially if the article is titled "Separable extension".

Let me also remark that an article on separable extensions should be aimed at people who are interested in Galois theory as well as commutative algebra and algebraic geometry. The article should also be accessible to as broad an audience as possible; I think it is reasonable to assume that the intended audience has some background in the rudimentary theory of field extensions and the current revision of the article is, in my opinion, accessible to such an audience.

I welcome any views on this matter with evidence for these views. --PST 03:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It reminds me of a similar discussion with Takuya Murata on 2009, see the first exchange here. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the link! I am not sure what to do with Separable extension, however. User:TakuyaMurata has reverted my edits three times without sufficient explanation or without addressing my concerns. The explanation he has given is essentially that: "he has removed material in Separable extension that is already covered in Perfect field and Separable polynomial" but this is not true as he will see if he reads the material that he has removed carefully. Furthermore, the same reasoning can be applied to suggest that the article in his revision of Separable extension is redundant as it is already covered in Kahler differential and Separable algebra. I wait for an explanation from User:TakuyaMurata but at present I am hoping that other users can express their views on the matter either here or at Talk:Separable extension because User:TakuyaMurata is adamant that his revision is more appropriate and I fear that I will not be able to convince him otherwise alone. --PST 00:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with an editor with good intentions, but just can't see why his stuff is problematic. Wikipedia simply doesn't have a mechanism dealing with them. Anyway, in short, I replaced his version, basically because it's not good. It seems to me the only solution is content fork, which I did: separable algebraic extension. In any case, we need a tie-breaker; I just can't do anything since he can't have any reasonable content debate.

Taku: Firstly, please sign your post above (I think this is your post per this diff). Secondly, you have written: "I'm not sure ... but just can't see why his stuff is problematic." If you cannot give a valid reason as two why "my stuff" is problematic, then my revision of Separable extension should be maintained. I think you mean: "I'm not sure ... but just can't see why his stuff isn't problematic." However, this does not make sense either because, if this were the case, then there would be nothing good about my revision of the article but you have not even provided a single valid reason as to why "my stuff" is problematic. I have responded to your criticizms but you are not addressing my explanations. You write: "Anyway, in short, I replaced his version, basically because it's not good." Again, you have not explained yourself. Why is my revision not good? I have clearly addressed your points above with explanations as to why my revision is, indeed, appropriate.

Also, I do not see the harm in having my revision; I have included the material that you have added to the article as well as the material that was previously maintained in the article. The idea of "deleting material" should be taken very seriously in Wikipedia especially since many articles lack content. My revision of the article is very detailed and, as I have noticed numerous times on the internet, is actually very helpful to a number of students who are learning about Separable extensions. Of course, this is not a criterion for inclusion since Wikipedia is a reference work (and not a textbook) but nevertheless reference works should be accessible to as broad an audience as possible and I think my revision of the article is more appropriate than yours for at least this reason (although there are many other reasons as well, which I have explained above). Your revision of the article begins by discussing the notion of separability in connection with tensor products; this places undue weight on this aspect of the theory of separable extensions which is inappropriate because separable algebraic extensions are more fundamental in mathematics. Finally, as I have mentioned numerous times, that which you have added to the article is very welcome and highly appropriate; however, I do not understand why you are intent on deleting perfectly good material from previous revisions of the article.

We have not arrived at a consensus but at the same time, Taku, you have not addressed the explanations that I have given you and the reason you cite is that "I just can't do anything since he can't have any reasonable content debate." Are you, by any chance, referring to our debate nearly three years ago at Ring (mathematics)? If so, then please remember that this was three years ago and I have to say I have changed a lot in this time. I look back on those discussions thinking that I handled the situation very poorly then. However, I am changed now. For example, if you notice, I have not participated in Wikipedia at all in the past one year. I am certainly willing to engage in a reasonable content debate but, at least to me, it seems that you are the one who is not willing to do so. --PST 23:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone's has put an AfD on List of important publications in mathematics

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics for the AfD. In particular, similar lists in bio and sociology have been deleted per WP:OR even though a majority supported keep. What kind of references exist for this list? RobHar (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else helps, it could be moved to the project space. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it worrying that the closing admin overrode what seemed to be a strong consensus to keep the other two similar lists. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the point was that the "keep" votes didn't argue against the OR claim, so in some sense there was indeed a consensus that these lists violated OR. In other words, if you want to keep this list, make sure to argue against the OR problem. RobHar (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The claim was, specifically, that no sources exist that define which publications are "important" and which are not. I find that a problematic and unworkable requirement; in my opinion it is sufficient for inclusion that reliable sources describe a publication as important. See the inclusion criterion for List of common misconceptions: it does not require sources that define which misconceptions are common (which then would be a definition whose application would almost certainly still require a fair amount of original research), but only, next to notability, that the item is reliably sourced not only with respect to its factual contents, but also the fact that it is indeed a common misconception. I expect that many if not most items on our list actually do meet the criterion that reliable sources exist attesting to their importance; it is only a matter of finding these sources.  --Lambiam 19:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly right. I fought long and hard to keep the biology list. In the process I pruned the list down so that every item had a wikipedia article. I argued that having a wikipedia article demonstrated notability. That argument was not accepted. I entirely agree that the criteria should be that the item in the list has a source showing that it is notable. If the publication has an article, the article would not exist if such a source did not exist. Note also, that while the biology list AfD was recent, the sociology list Afd was a long time ago and that around that time, the biology list was put to AfD and not deleted. I also note that the mathematics list is not the only one at AfD. Medicine and several computer lists are there too. The Physics and Chemistry lists are not there (yet!). --Bduke (Discussion) 23:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice that the same editor has nominated six such lists for deletion, in six subject areas that don't have much in common. This is the sort of action that causes a great deal of disruption on Wikipedia. In each case the reason given for nomination is search revealed no compilation of important works in this field. But it's unlikely that this editor has specialist knowledge of all six fields; such compilations have been found by others in the cases of mathematics and geology. So it strikes me as a frivolous sort of nomination. Does Wikipedia have an appropriate forum for protesting against actions of this kind? There should be one place for discussion of all these nominations, instead of it being fragmented across six different pages. Jowa fan (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The place to discuss disruptive actions (as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 1#This is not a good way of doing it) is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. But it is not a good place to discuss the content issues: whether there is a place for such lists, in general, on Wikipedia; and what inclusion criteria are appropriate. A place for that may be Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy or Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. In fact, I think it is time for having a section in our Deletion policy explaining in more detail how it applies to, specifically, lists (although reaching consensus may prove impossible if people are not willing to accept compromise). For the page titles (move all back to the original "List of publications in ..."?) the venue would be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists.  --Lambiam 11:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, if you think that "List of important publications in X" are helpful to the reader – provided that suitable inclusion criteria are defined – you should consider voting at the sister AfDs mentioned down at the Afd page. Nageh (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a problem. I feel strongly that articles should not be deleted because a) it's considered "not important", or that b) it's considered "not the sort of thing that should appear in an encyclopedia", or c) because someone with an overly tidy mind can't abide seeing semicomplete or sketchy articles, or d) because someone else with a stupid neurosis doesn't like lists.

But I haven't got time to rake through pages and pages of discussions on this topic in Wikipedia:Deletion policy etc. etc. So what's going to happen is that I and people like me are likely to drift away from Wikipedia and start or join our own wikis which have a more welcoming attitude towards inclusion of minority-interest pages. Much as I'd love to get involved in all this, life's just too short. Sorry.

What's the big deal about deleting stuff anyway? Are we becoming so space-limited that such pages are costing Wikipedia money? If there is no such limiting factor, then why is it so important to delete stuff? --Matt Westwood 12:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well so much for me claiming I have no time for this ... the antagonist in question is User:Curb Chain who's a noob who's been reprimanded multiple times since April 2011 for doing destructive and disruptive things to serve an agenda that I cannot figure out. Is there a way to nominate a user for speedy deletion? --Matt Westwood 12:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the only AFD proposal I've seen that made no attempt to state any particular grounds for deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well not that I need to see it deleted, but the list has definitely issues (from my perspective in particular the somewhat arbitrary book section). The WP:OR charge is not completely false either, since textbook section is mostly unsourced and to me it is not at all clear to me how these books are selected (either it is extremely incomplete or rather arbitrary).

I agree that asking for sources for the selection criteria itself, i.e. the definition of the list, is not an appropriate request as defining that criteria can be seen as a mere editorial decision. In fact most lists in WP, that I've encountered, work that way. However asking for sources for the individual entries, showing that they meet the defining criteria of the list is an appropriate request. If we don't have that, it easily turns into a list of publications that WP author X deems important, which is indeed WP:OR.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely with this assessment. (I also get the feeling from the textbooks section that it's what graduate students happen to be reading these days rather than actual landmarks...) I said over at the AfD that ultimately the list should probably be at most half of its current length, with better references. I don't know what the best way to demand references for individual entries is ({{fact}} tags put in a conspicuous place?) Maybe the best solution is for a WP:Wikiogre to take it over... Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Bduke went through a considerable effort to make sure that all items in List of important publications in biology were in fact so notable that each had its own Wikipedia article. To no avail; the damning consideration was that there was no reliable source proclaiming, "The following are the important publications in biology: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ..."; ergo: OR. Q.E.D. (And if such a source existed, the article could instead be speedily deleted as a copyvio – you can't win) So our Wikiogre's time, if donated to our list, may also turn out to have been misspent.  --Lambiam 14:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed now the crucial question. There are a few editors that claim the latter interpretation is the correct one, from the notability pages they cite. However, I am not convinced. It needs people to investigate this issue in detail and argue the case strongly. I just do not have the time this week. I have a colleague arriving from Germany and we need to work on a paper together. Note also the obvious point that the closing admin will not read this discussion here, or at least be not influenced by it. Arguments need to be on the AfD not here. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue of textbooks is raised above quite rightly. In fact texts to not meet the criteria that is at the top of the page. The template that adds this was altered by the geology list editors a few weeks ago to remove all mention of textbooks and I added back the criteria that was already in place on the chemistry list, "or has had a massive impact on the teaching of XX" to the "Influence" section. The massive influence of course needs strong sources. I suggest you remove all textbooks that do not meet that criteria. Also please note that I am User:Bduke NOT User:BDuke. The latter was created by a sockpuppet, who I had irritated, many years ago--Bduke (Discussion) 21:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic, but could everyone please stop using the word criteria as a singular noun? It's really wince-inducing. --Trovatore (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a hidden agendum, then? :-) --Matt Westwood 22:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Though the historical point may be similar, agenda has become naturalized as a singular noun. Criteria has not. Using it in the singular is inferior usage. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What to do with Mathematical statement

Mathematical statement redirects to Proposition; yet the term does not occur in the article, which is all concerned with philosophy and logic, and not with mathematics per se. There is also Statement (logic), which leaves out the philosophical context, but is also not a good redirection target for Mathematical statement for the same reasons. In fact, Proposition and Statement (logic) might well be merged.

A closer fit in some sense is Sentence (mathematical logic), but again, it does not use the term (and there is no natural way to introduce it there), and is also not concerned with mathematics per se, but only aspects of mathematics that are, or have been modelled in terms of, mathematical formal logic.

I feel that Mathematical statement is a fundamental notion, used for instance in Effective method ("Church's thesis is not a mathematical statement") and Mathematical proof ("a convincing demonstration ... that some mathematical statement is necessarily true"). How can we best enlighten a reader who seeks to understand that notion? Should Mathematical statement have an article on its own? Or should it redirect somewhere – but then where? Ideas on how to handle this?  --Lambiam 10:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I intuit that you're not going to like it, but my suggestion would be to delete it. We can't, and shouldn't try to, document all the nuances of mathematical speech. I think we have far too many "articles" of this sort already (one prime example is if and only if).

The uses you give are specifically meant to be informal attempts to get an idea across in natural language. I think it misses the point to take them as establishing some technical notion of mathematical statement that they're trying to connect with something else. In fact, even if mathematical statement is to stay a bluelink, I think it should be unlinked in the above examples, because to link it is to try to connect it with some precise technical notion, and that's exactly what they're trying not to do. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)