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.

Fortifying wikiquanta

This project is mostly physical (and advertised on wikiproject physics), but may interest some mathematicians, too. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

New Math rendering now on Beta

https://twitter.com/physikerwelt/status/720310670512631808 --Physikerwelt (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My first thought was: what's new? MathML already worked on Firefox. Then I noticed I now get SVGs in Chrome. Unfortunaltely, they are just as ugly as the PNGs, but at least they're scalable :) Can we at least switch to STIX for the default font? Computer "Modern" looks incredibly midevil... -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: technically that's not a problem, but is ther consensus for that change?--Physikerwelt (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Physikerwelt, I'm positive an RfC with both fonts being showcased (with screenshots) will establish a consensus soon enough. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The beta page can be found at http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Math --Salix alba (talk): 23:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it looks beautiful. Ozob (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

More help needed at AfC

Greetings and salutations. Draft:Dragonfly algorithm is a draft sitting at AfC which I could really use input on. Thanks in advance.

Oh, and if you're in the mood, there is a stale draft, Draft:Subdivision curve, which I also could use some help evaluating. Thanks in advance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Darboux frame

I think in the "Definition" section that "(the unit tangent)" and "(the unit normal)" should be interchanged. That is "(the unit tangent)" should be where "(the unit normal)" is, and "(the unit normal)" should be where "(the unit tangent)" is. MGilly9 (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

If you mean that the formulas for "unit tangent" and "unit normal" should be interchanged in Darboux frame § Definition, you are wrong. If you mean that the ordering of the three unit vectors must be changed, this is not so clear. The order of the vectors in a frame is a question of convention, and any convention is valid. However, it is not natural that the two tangent vectors are separated by the normal vector, and avoiding this imply to exchange the first two vectors, as you are asking for. Nevertheless we have to follow the literature, and before making this exchange, one has to look on the reliable references for the most common convention. D.Lazard (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like there are some equations with T, t, u whose left-hand sides should be double-checked. Sławomir
Biały 11:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Message for: RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML (Follow Up) Suggestion

Hi, so I don't know where the best place to post this is. I have this RFC that is highly applicable to this WikiProject that should be advertised here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungryce (talk • contribs) 02:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

For those with any knowledge of clade-type computations/presentations

Could you have a look at this effort, here, to use clade diagrams to summarize pharma business acquisitions. My take at present is that the images created are devoid of standard quantitative meaning—nothing is captured by vertical and horizontal line lengths, as far as I can tell—and so they are a misapplication of this maths/graphic presentation method. Moreover, I argue that they are misleading (presenting a time axis, but not making spacing of events proportionate to the historical time differences), much harder to maintain (consider adding entries to a std Table versus this graphic), more likely to diminish article quality (in their ambiguity of content, again, over a std Table with clear headings), and therefore practically amenable to decay as a result. I would add to this, in this esteemed maths context, that they would make those who trained us, and other purists in methodology and meaning (and Edward Tufte more generally), turn in their graves/beds. After having a look at the User page and at a couple of pages linked on that sandbox page, leave your opinion here, regarding the overall effort? Thanks for your opinion. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the inappropriate posting above. I have opened a discussion in the appropriate forum, here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Companies#Diagrams, for anyone who is interested Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog moved the question to a new forum, the one where it is least likely to be viewed with rigour, see last comment and link. I reply there. I stand by the fact that maths is an appropriate venue to call for experts, and that it was appropriate to call out to you you at this location, to ask your input. All coming from mathematics, I would appreciate if you state for the record, if you have any real knowledge on this matter (have ever actually done a cladogram-type computations). Transparency, please. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Need insights

See Talk:Area of a circle#Circular Argument. I am not asking for support for either side, but for input from those with higher math education than either me or the IP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Changes by Yonathanyeremy

I just reverted a change by Yonathanyeremy (talk · contribs) and looking at their other ones I can't see anything else that I agree with. Anyone else like to have a quick check and perhaps say what on earth is happening thanks. Dmcq (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw this edit to Paul Erdős and didn't care enough to try to decide whether to revert. Many of the others are similar, changes to links that are pretty innocuous and neither obviously improvements nor obviously vandalism. (Sorry this is probably not helpful.) --JBL (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I've undone a few more of his changes. I'm curious to know why he's doing these. Ozob (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Cyclic function

We have a short article titled cyclic function that is not in very good shape right now. In particular, can anyone understand this final sentence?:

Cyclic functions can be used in solving problems by substituting a function for its cyclic pair.

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Tentatively, it's about the universe of mathematical problem solving: there is a class of problems in which one is to solve an algebraic equation involving a cyclic function (or one with a similar property), and by iterative substitution one arrives at an equation that is more easily human-solvable. --JBL (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Based on Google, it looks like "cyclic function" usually means "periodic function". So even though there's at least one prominent hit for the meaning of "cyclic function" given in the article, I think it might be better for cyclic function to redirect to periodic function. Ozob (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Dashboard course

It appears that a Dashboard.wikiedu.org course (Calculus I at Howard University) is getting active with 5 student editors working on several calculus related pages. I have just reverted two of them on Integration by substitution before I realized that this was part of a sponsored program. I believe my reverts were the correct thing to do, but I am wondering whether or not I should have been more proactive in pointing out what the problems with the edits were. There are several issues involved here that I think should be addressed by project members. I have seen this type of project several times already and in each instance the program has left messes on several pages that have had to been cleaned up by us. Is there a way to inform the program directors that while the intentions of this program may be good and noble, the direct consequence is that a lot of unnecessary cleanup work is being created for us and perhaps there are other ways to achieve their ends without over-burdening the project editors. As WP editors we do not act as referees for the material presented on the pages, we do not evaluate, nor correct – unless backed up by a reliable source. By an extension of the philosophy upon which that position is based, should we be acting as teachers of the, in this case, Howard University students? Howard U. is not paying us a salary, nor does it have any control over who we are; I think the university should be concerned about that. Any comments, suggestions, etc. Thanks. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There's the education Noticeboard, which can be used if needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Education noticeboard is at WP:ENB: WP:EN redirects to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 09:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Link fixed, thanks. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Or you could contact Ian (Wiki Ed) who appears to be the Wikipedia education person associated with Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Howard University, Washington, DC/Calculus I (spring 2016). Joseph2302 (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Also Joel Lewis reverted some edits to limit of a function that were related to this program. It looks like all edits to these articles were reverted and that the edits were made by at least three distinct students in that program. This suggests that the students are encouraged not only to review the articles, but also to edit them. That is a problem, in my opinion. While there is no rule against people unfamiliar with a topic making edits, typically for major edits such as these, one should generally expect that the editor is familiar both with how Wikipedia works, and with the topic area. Correction: this edit to antiderivative was reverted, by me. Sławomir
Biały 09:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I've notified Ian (Wiki Ed) about this discussion, so hopefully he'll be able to help/advise. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm distressed by this whole situation. These students are being asked to contribute to well-developed articles written by experts, and they just don't have the competence to do so. Their contributions so far have shown they don't understand calculus and they don't know how to write. The students who haven't edited yet are unlikely to be any better. I'm sure they're being graded on their contributions; do they all get an F because they can't write with style and depth of professional mathematician? They're in an impossible position. Ozob (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that the students are required to edit the articles: "Add 1–2 sentences of new information, backed up with a citation to an appropriate source, to a Wikipedia article related to the class." This is most worrying indeed. It seems like the students are editing mostly the leads of articles, which is in fact the hardest part to write, requiring the most experience (both as a Wikipedian and as a content expert). I think these assignments should be put an end to. Sławomir
Biały 12:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason not to revert substandard edits. You should treat them like any other Wikipedia editor (good or bad); their additions need to be high enough quality, and they must be reliably sourced. And you're right - it isn't your job to clean up after them. Let me figure what's going on and try to steer them in a better direction. My apologies for the trouble caused. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Kundu equation (again)

• Anjan.Kundu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kundu equation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Eckhaus equation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anjan.Kundu is editing both of these articles, and adding content about the Kundu-Eckhaus equation to Kundu equation. In my view, the Kundu-Eckhaus & Eckhaus equations are the same equation, and so all the information should be on that article. The Kundu equation is a separate equation IMO. Thoughts? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

Let me explain this issue briefly.

An integrable generalization of the nonlinear Schroedinger equation with additional quintic nonlinerity and a nonlinear dispersive term given by

$\psi _{t}+\psi _{xx}-2c|\psi |^{2}q+\kappa ^{2}|\psi |^{4}\psi \pm 2i\kappa (|\psi |^{2})_{x}\psi =0,$

proposed in (kundu|1984) is known as the Kundu-Eckhaus equation (more details on this equation with its other aspects, applications and references can be found in my Sandbox). Eckhaus equation introduced later is a particular case of the Kundu-Eckhaus equation (with $c=0$) and therefore not the same equation as incorrectly mentioned in that Wiki page. Note that while the Eckhaus equation is linearizable, the Kundu-Eckhaus equation is reducible only to the nonlinear Schroedinger equation through the same transformation. On the other hand, the Kundu-Eckhaus equation can be derived from the Kundu equation as a particular case. Therefore IMO there may be three logical options: (1) Eckhaus equation can go as a subsection under Kundu-Eckhaus equation, (2) Kundu-Eckhaus equation can go as a subsection under Kundu equation, (3) Kundu-Eckhaus equation can go as an independent entry.

Hope to get your valuable suggestion/opinion/advice. Anjan.kundu (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC) April 27, 2016

Hello Dr. Kundu. Thank you for adding this to Wikipedia. I think your contributions are valuable and interesting. A slight caution is that, generally, Wikipedia discourages editing a topic that one has too close a connection to (for example, articles about eponymous concepts named after ourselves). Some editors can be a little aggressive in their pursuit of stamping out apparent "self-promotion". Of course, when a concept is named after a person, that person is also often uniquely the most qualified person to write about that topic, so it's something of a mixed bag. I, for one, think your contributions are good, and not overly self-promotional, but please don't take it personally if others see the situation differently. My advise would be to edit other articles in your area of expertise, since you obviously know the literature in this field quite well. I've made some edits at Kundu equation (mostly spelling corrections), but it needs some more work, and I'm sure other editors will eventually want to clean it up some more. Thanks, Sławomir
Biały 14:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Prof. Slawekb ławomir Thank you very much for your valuable comments and advice. Hope other editors would also agree to it with more suggestions and finally the 'tag' marked now to the contribution of Kundu equation could be removed.

With best regards. Anjan.kundu (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)