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.

H-matrix about iterative method

H-matrix is a matrix with its comparison matrix is M-matrix. It is useful in iterative method. We need an article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E35D:2645:0:0:BA08:6E01 (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

[1][2] See these articles. H-matrix is an important subject. --2001:2D8:E35D:2645:0:0:BA08:6E01 (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

We need an article about comparison matrix too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E35D:2645:0:0:BA08:6E01 (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As you are talking of iterative methods, I guess that you are talking of Hurwitz's stable matrix (H being an abbreviation of Hurwitz), and not of Hadamard matrix that has also been called H-matrix. If it is not the case, you are welcome for writing a lacking article. D.Lazard (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Comparison matrix and H-matrix are created by me. --Sharouser (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

In its present state, the article titled Comparison matrix is only a definition. If there's not more to say about it, then there's no reason for the article to exist. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

There are two meaning of monotonic matrix

First definition is as same as wikipedia article of monotone matrix. The other definition is here

This monotonic matrix is a integer rectangular matrix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E35D:2645:0:0:BA08:6E01 (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I created monotonic matrix Done --Sharouser (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"Countering systemic bias/Mathematics" at Miscellany for Deletion

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Migration away from old texvc <math> engine

There is now a project to migrate away from the texvc renderer for <math> expressions. This was the default a few years ago which produces PNG images, now we have a hybrid solution with uses MathJax in the backend to produce svg images and sometimes xml. There is still some legacy from texvc as it is used in the frist parsing step of the current engine. This means there are some idiosyncrasies in the syntax which differ from standard LaTex:

Current syntax	Suggested replacement	Comment
$	\$	redefinition would involve changing the character code
%	\%	redefinition would involve changing the character code
\and	\land	causes normal align environment to fail
\or	\lor	see [3]; causes teubner to fail
\part	\partial	acceptable if the document doesn't use sectioning with \part.
\ang	\angle	this only conflicts with siunitx package.
\C	\Complex	conflicts with puenc.def e.g. from hyperref package
\H	\mathbb{H}	conflicts with text command \H{0} which is ő.
\bold	\mathbf
\Bbb	\mathbb
\pagecolor	remove	not needed and not working anymore, done on en-wiki mainspace
<ce>...</ce>	<chem>...</chem>	Chemistry environment, done on en-wiki mainspace

The first step in the project will involve deprecating the old syntax and running a bot or semi-automated edits to change the syntax. These should not result in any visible change to the pages. The bot doing the work is User:Texvc2LaTeXBot which is currently seeking approval. Changes will also be made to the Visual Editor to produce the new syntax.

Subsequent stages in the project are discussed at mw:Extension:Math/Roadmap, these involve some more complex problems with the <chem> syntax. Eventually the texvc part will be removed completely and there may be some slight change to the rendered output. The main discussion of the project happens at T195861 and your input is welcome.--Salix alba (talk): 15:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Postnomial on Erdos

I invite other editors' opinions on this edit. (The user in question has been unilaterally making this change over dozens if not hundreds of articles on scientists, and is very abrasive about it. It seems deeply wrongheaded to me to put the postnomial in the lead sentence of the article, and moderately wrongheaded to put it into the infobox, but more discussion is needed than just two of us reverting each other.) --JBL (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, both generally and very specifically in this case. Paul received many honors throughout his lifetime and it appeared to me that he didn't revel in any of them. To stick this postnomial in the lead seems to be saying much more about the Royal Academy than it does about Paul. I could see it in an infobox, listed under honors, but not immediately under his name as if this is the most important thing about him. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This was my feeling exactly -- says much more about RS than about the recipients. Several other users (DVdm, Attic Salt) seem to agree as well and have undone some of the mess. Probably someone will have to go through systematically at some point to fully clean up. --JBL (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree as well, in fact i dislike that template in general. If there is an important honour, that needs to be in the lead for some reason, then it should be written explicitly in regular text, instead of cryptic abbreviation in a special font. Moreover common practice is to handle such honours with templates & categories at the end of the article or in the infobox.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There's great lot of similar edits. I don't have the time to fix them all, so I asked user Bueller 007 (talk · contribs) to stop adding it, and to help undoing. - DVdm (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I probably have removed most of them now (based on his recent edit history). However apparently there is at least one similar template for Canadian science society. So I'm wondering for what purpose those templates were created in the first place other then sticking them in the lead. If the lead was the only reason for their creation, they probably should get deleted.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Now there seems to be a new account created just in order to edit-war over this (!!?). --JBL (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bueller 007. - DVdm (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Ha, looks like you are a bit quicker than I am :). --JBL (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The "signature" section already gives all the postnomial letters that are necessary. :-) XOR'easter (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits at Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem

I'd like to hear the community's opinion about these changes. For my own part, I think "famously" is quite applicable, and in academic writing, full names aren't necessary (and can even sound overly familiar). Thoughts? XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There's some long-term problematic editor obsessed with words like "famous" -- could this be them? I agree with you about it (it even had its own supporting citation!). About full names, this encyclopedia is not academic writing -- I think the editor has a point (although they are making it in an obnoxious way). --JBL (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm largely indifferent, though I suspect that if I had written that paragraph, I would have left the first names off. The complaint about "award-winning" was also a bit odd, since the citation identified what the award was. XOR'easter (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Glancing at edit history, I'd agree with JBL. The editor seems mostly deal with style and format issues and possibly in often or at least occasional questionable manner.

The "Who" tags are partially nonsense. Using last names at least for repeated use is common standard (in encylopedic writing). Faltings for instance was just mentioned with full name and linked a few lines above. Names occuring for the first time and which can't be linked, should however be given as full names.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point about repeated use; thank you. XOR'easter (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes this is a good point. --JBL (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have undone the edits. The word famous is explicitly present ("Fermat's famous marginal comment") in the cited source. This user Reedsrecap (talk · contribs)'s ^{(hereby pinged)} edits amount to unwarranted removal of properly sourced content. - DVdm (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

1. I find it very rude that someone started a discussion about my edits in a community that I am not a part of, without bothering to notify me, or discuss anything with me first.
2. This seems representative of a general hostility. People are throwing out terms like "problematic", "obnoxious" and "nonsense" when you haven't even bothered to talk to me.
3. As for the edits, undoing them in their entirety was obviously not productive. Text like "One might want to first read an email Ken Ribet sent in 1993" is obviously not encyclopaedic, and the edit summary did not remotely justify the removal of cleanup tags or the restoration of speculation and advice; see WP:REVEXP for why you should do better if you really want to undo in its entirety an edit that someone (in this case me) obviously put time and thought into.
4. Given the insults already thrown at me, I'm not interested in any further interaction here. I'll say only this: the appearance of a word in a source has no relevance to what words should appear in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles must be written in the author's own words. And if something’s famous, you don’t need to tell people; if you need to tell people something’s famous, it isn’t. Reedsrecap (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Re 1: I notified you here.

Re 3: Indeed. That part was put straight by XOR'easter after my revert here.

Re 4: The source's "Fermat's famous marginal comment" appears in the article as someone's own words as "Fermat famously claimed...". The source was put there two years ago, when you repeatedly tried to remove the word as 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:1D8:EEEE:CA1E:EB63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). And see also 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:4157:429C:9508:5045 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2 days later, with this.

- DVdm (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Re 1: I apologize for not pinging you when I first opened the discussion here. I didn't have any definite plans (or even strong feelings, really), so I got careless. Most of the notifying I do is posting to WikiProjects and noticeboards, so posting messages to user talk pages can slip my mind. I can also fall too easily into the habit of thinking, "Why would anyone who is not a math person bother with editing a math page?" and then "Don't all the math people around here follow the WikiProject talk page?".

Re 3: I thought you had a good point about the tone of some passages ("one might..."), so I edited them for encyclopedic style.

Re 4: I don't think the Guardian style guide applies. (And even they don't forbid the word in practice [4][5][6]. It's a style guide, not a commandment.) The function of an encyclopedia is not the same as that of a newspaper; for example, we cover people who were famed in their day for activities largely forgotten now. Few mathematical assertions have had the notoriety of Fermat's, and it is appropriate for us to recognize that. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Just so's you all know. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ditto. - DVdm (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Redirect for discussion

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 25#Acoptic polygon. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

MR/Project Euclid bot?

Did anyone ever think about running a bot on Wikipedia to improve mathematical citations based on math databases? Specifically an MR bot/Project Euclid bot of sorts?

For instance, searching PE by DOI reveals that is an entry for it. This is a closed access link, but it does lists doi:10.3150/17-BEJ959, MR3788173, Zbl 06869876 as identifiers. The bot could add MR3788173, Zbl 06869876to citations with doi:10.3150/17-BEJ959 in them. Likewise, instance MR0334798 lists [7] which is listed as "Full-text: Open access" and there is also Zbl 1125.83309 listed as an identifier. The bot could add |url=https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1103858973 and |zbl=1125.83309 to citations with MR0334798 in them.

There are other links than PE in the MR database, but the general idea would be the same. Query various math databases by various identifiers, give the other identifiers when found, and open access links when found.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Going to @JohnBlackburne and CBM: on this since I know they ran bots/ have programming experience / have a background in math. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Not something I know anything about – my programming experience does not extend to bots, and the times when I’ve wanted to investigate it I’ve been stopped by AWB being Windows only.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

AWB wouldn't work for this anyway. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have time for a project like this at the moment, unfortunately. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@CBM: in a few weeks/months maybe? I could make a general WP:BOTREQ, but I'd rather have math people on this since they would know which database to look into and how they are structured. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's a related story about another bibliographic database, INSPIRE, setting up automatic links to MathSciNet (I presume through DOI matching). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Bplus-Class mathematics articles has been nominated for discussion

Category:Bplus-Class mathematics articles, which is within the scope of this wikiproject, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Emma Lemma

Here's a proposed deletion up for discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Lemma. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Lindelöf hypothesis discussion

Can some editors from the project look into and help resolve the discussion at the Lindelöf hypothesis article's talkpage? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent

Here's another deletion discussion.

It appears to me that the nominator has misunderstood with astonishing completeness what the article is about.

Click on the linked page and post your opinion. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

abc conjecture implies Fermat-Catalan conjecture?

Per a question at the ref desk: is the implication correct? Both articles formerly claimed it was, but an editor has removed the claim from Fermat-Catalan conjecture. -2601:142:3:F83A:9D73:4BE:2A07:E50A (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, according to M. Waldschmidt, "Lecture on the abc Conjecture and Some of Its Consequences", Mathematics in the 21st Century, 2015, Springer, http://www.imj-prg.fr/~michel.waldschmidt/articles/pdf/abcLahoreProceedings.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs)