Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 93.74.76.101 (talk) at 13:53, 26 January 2015 (→‎Navier – Stokes Millennium Prize Problem. Alternative Solution). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Well-known crank. See [1]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear members of the world mathematical community!

Enyokoyama (talk) (15:12, 8 November 2013) has offered the new section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Yet_another_solution_proposed.3F As a result of discussing this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Attempt_at_solution.5Bedit.5D has been proposed for improvements to the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness article:

Attempt at solution

Classical solutions

In 2013, Mukhtarbay Otelbaev of the Eurasian National University in Astana, Kazakhstan, proposed a solution. As an attempt to solve an important open problem, the proof was immediately inspected by others in the field, who found at least one serious flaw.[1] Otelbaev is attempting to fix the proof, but other mathematicians are skeptical.


Alternative solutions

Terence Tao in 18 March, 2007 announced[2] three possible strategies of an alternative solutions if one wants to solve the full Millennium Prize problem for the 3-dimensional Navier-Stokes equation. Strategy 1 “Solve the Navier-Stokes equation exactly and explicitly (or at least transform this equation exactly and explicitly to a simpler equation)” is used in these works:

The author of these brief notes Alexandr Kozachok (Kiev, Ukraine) has offered (in February 2008 – Internet , in 2008, 2010, 2012 – INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE reports, in November 2013 and February 2014 - INTERNATIONAL journal) two exact transformations to the simpler equations. These transformations are executed by well-known classical methods of mathematical physics. Therefore not only some professionals, but also educational, social and many other sites have republished or paid attention to these works .

Read more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Attempt_at_solution.5Bedit.5D

However the Wiki editors can not deny “Alternative solutions” but only block any information about this work.

Therefore let's formulate your position for editing of the “Attempt at solution” section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Attempt_at_solution 93.74.76.101 (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Moskvitch, Katia (5 August 2014). "Fiendish million-dollar proof eludes mathematicians". Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15659.
  2. ^ "Why global regularity for Navier-Stokes is hard". What's new. Retrieved 22 December 2014.

The above shows that our old friend Continuum-paradoxes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back (and apparently editing under various IPs). He is no longer limiting his contributions to discussion pages, so it might be good for project participants to keep an eye on Navier-Stokes related articles (and other articles that this crank might attempt to push his OR). Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Sławomir Biały, your comment «Well-known crank. See [1]» is an expected first reaction of the mathematician because really it is very difficult to believe that “Helmholtz decomposition is wrong”. However, I wonder why this comment has appeared in the section “Navier – Stokes Millennium Prize Problem…” and later 2,5 years after discussion [1] with your active participation? Now, it is better to give another reference( http://analysis3.com/Helmholtz-decomposition-contradictions-pdf-e117376.html) where ideas of the author are covered more strictly. Besides, mathematician should find arguments for a refutation of the claim “Helmholtz decomposition is wrong”. Therefore, your emotions are perceived as a lack of any arguments for this refutation. 93.74.76.101 (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Ihor Voloshyn: I wonder why mathematicians still can not reasonably refute the statement “The Helmholtz decomposition is wrong” that was stated by Alexander Kozachok more two years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.49.182 (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Ihor Voloshyn (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Ihor Voloshyn, Mathematicians have already answered a similar question here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Attempt_at_solution.5Bedit.5D :

(Question) “You also write «Your work has been seen by the community». In that case why mathematicians cannot deny this work as rapidly as, for example, Otelbaev’s work?” (Question)


1. …….Your work contradicts the mathematics that keeps the cars you drive on the road, the planes you fly in the air, the water you drink flowing through the pipes, the house you live in from not falling down. Who should we believe, Euler, Riemann, Gauss, Newton, Helmholtz, Leibniz or you?......... AnonymousMath (talk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AnonymousMath 13:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


2. ….It is not our mandate to find your errors for you. One way to get your errors pointed out is to offer a bounty for anyone finding an error. I think $500 should do the trick, but you should actually be prepared to pay it out pretty quickly. Sławomir Biały (talk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:S%C5%82awomir_Bia%C5%82y 14:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC) 93.74.76.101 (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a preprint

(I am posting this here rather than at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Polyhedra because that project is pretty well inactive.)

Johnson, N.W.; Geometries and transformations (2015) is actively being cited in many articles on polyhedra and related topics, in a sudden flurry of activity. Tomruen (talk · contribs) writes on his talk page that it currently exists only in PDF preprint form but it has been accepted for publication. I have in my possession an earlier draft which was circulated many years ago, and just a couple of weeks ago began removing references to it which had appeared in many of these articles. Suddenly, these are being supplanted by references to the anticipated 2015 publication. Based on past history, I am not confident that the wait for publication will in fact be a short one. Are we happy to accept Tom's word on this? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had PDF access to the manuscript since 2011 with its final draft submitted in March 2014, and accepted in September 2014, and is in process of being reformatted with minimal content changes. I agree a preprint is problematic on verifiability. I take full responsibility if there are delays in print dates, and I'll update all reference usages as needed on final publishing. I've tried to include exact references on specific facts, and sections and titles should be fixed, but cited page numbers will likely shift a bit. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see not so much a problem with citing a preprint to an expert, but rather that the preprint doesn't seem to be publicly accessible. A link to it might be a valuable addition, but not a reference that is only in private circulation. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked into this a little more, and I don't think things are quite that simple. See, for instance, 8-demicubic honeycomb. This reference has been there for a number of years, so presumably Tom Ruen relied on it to write the article. Only recently does it seem that he has updated the dates on that reference, presumably in anticipation of its imminent publication, although we can't really be sure. In an academic setting, it is necessary and appropriate to cite the sources that one uses, whatever their publication status. That seems to conflict slightly with WP:V in this case. However, I think we should allow the reference to stay there to avoid any appearance of plagiarism. Hopefully it truly will be published soon, and this whole affair will become a non-issue. Anyway, just my 2c, so YMMV. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have the suspicion that a lot of the references on our polyhedra pages are pro forma "cite something generic on polyhedra because a Wikipedia article needs to have citations" rather than being specific to the subject of the article and the information they are supposedly sourcing. E.g. we have a lot of references to Coxeter's Regular Polytopes (a fine and relevant book) but without any page numbers or other identifying information that would tailor the reference to the article it appears in. So a preprint with a generic title that nobody can access is especially problematic, regardless of the reliability of its author. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. I have noticed too that any challenge to some fanboy's favorite factoid tends to result in a flurry of such citations, typically also to self-published web material. There is much that needs attention. Now that we learn that Johnson's book is not yet in its final form but still being "reformatted with minimal content changes", I am even less happy about pretending on most every polytope page that it will be published this year. And what on Earth does it mean for a Wikipedia editor to "take full responsibility"? Whatever happened to biding one's time? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if this is a preprint, or just a draft submitted by the author last year - the final, corrected draft is not due until the Summer and there appears no definitive publication date. Meanwhile Tomruen (talk · contribs) continues to add new material based on this MS, including various neologisms such as adding "ditel" here. He says above that he "takes responsibility" for this, but that is meaningless because he can wait another fifteen years for it to appear if he wants to. Who is to call that "responsibility" in? Is this situation really acceptable? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I answered your fact challenge with an explicit reference (Regular polytopes, p. 129) And in adding ditel, I referenced a published paper by Professor Johnson. [2] I'm not interested in bias or special treatment for Johnson's terms over any other possibilities. I'm simply giving readers an alternative term besides 1-polytope. If dyad or ditelon or any other terminology exists in usage, and reference can be made, I'd support including those as well. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference for "ditel" appears to be an unrefereed conference paper of dubious reliability. In any case, copying a term that is used in a single publication, and writing the article in such a way as to imply that this term is in general usage, was a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Here's an example of the type of referencing I consider problematic. This edit adds three non-inline sources to the references section of an (already adequately-referenced) article; the one I can most easily check (Grünbaum and Shephard's book Tilings and Patterns) is a book reference without page numbers (see a recent discussion on this type of problem at Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines) but I have the whole book and while it does have a few pages on star polygons they do not include any mention of the specific subject of the article; I am very skeptical that the other two references contain nontrivial content about the subject either. Basically, it seems to miss the point of adding references: to make it possible to verify that the claims within the article are true and known. These references neither support any claims, nor provide any additional information about the subject of the article; they appear to be there only as a form of decoration, to make it look like the article has references. I reverted the edit for this reason but many similar sets of bad references exist in our other polygon/polyhedron/polytope articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Green's function number

Dear mathematicians: Is this old AfC submission about a notable topic? The references are not on line, but perhaps someone here at this project can tell if these are appropriate. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been accepted, but it still needs a bit of cleanup and some more references. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Primefac. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Betti numbers and torsion coefficients

Hi,

I have started a discussion at Talk:Homology (mathematics)#Betti numbers and torsion coefficients on how to present these topological invariants. All contributions gratefully received. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A resource for English-Chinese translation of high school math terms: "Bilingual Dictionary of Mathematical Terms: English--Chinese."

If anyone is...

  • Trying to translate mathematics content on the English Wikipedia into Chinese
  • Trying to translate mathematics content on the Chinese Wikipedia into English
  • Adding Chinese-language terminology to mathematics-related content on the Wikimedia Commons
  • Trying to hold a mathematics-related discussion with a Chinese user

I have a source you can use (as long as it's high school level math - about Algebra I/Geometry level)

There are also similar dictionaries for Vietnamese and for Laotian but unfortunately they are not online yet (both say "PDF pending restoration") WhisperToMe (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki page for the equation of a forced pendulum?

I'm talking about the equation discussed by Hubbard in this overview (originally published in American Mathematical Monthly, so one would assume it is a topic of sufficiently general interest). There numerous non-wiki resources for it... On wiki, Duffing equation is similarly chaotic, but does not cover it.

Also driven pendulum redirects to Kapitza's pendulum, but that's not what 99.9% of the non-wiki sources usually mean by "driven pendulum", but rather what I linked in that pdf. 86.121.137.79 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC request

Could someone please give the page at User:Inezzzzz/sandbox a look over? I've asked at two other wikiprojects as well, but I can't even begin to understand what is happening at this article. --TKK! bark with me! 23:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a notable enough topic, but the wiki presentation is poor. In a (mathematical) nutshell: "Indicator kriging is ordinary kriging of indicator variables for several cut-offs." On the other hand there are several books detailing it, including psedudocode etc., so that a sub-article may be justified. But don't ask me to write it. 86.121.137.79 (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finite volume methods...

This came up on the current activity page, not new but newly categorised.

and looking I found two more very similar:

It's outside my area so I can't do much to them. They clearly need cleaning up but then what? Are they even notable, or just worked examples of the finite volume method? Or should they be merged, they certainly have a lot in common, not just names but similar content, similar extended links sections. Created by three different accounts, perhaps someone logging in after forgetting a password, perhaps lots of copy and paste.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please evaluate an AFC draft

Please evaluate Draft:Laver property for acceptability into mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The key sentence needs to be expanded or explained more. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is the expansion of that sentence essential for the article to pass WP:Notability? If not I can accept it into mainspace now so that normal maintenance can take care of it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know. I never heard of the Laver property before. If the Shelah reference is real, I would let it in, but I do not have his book so I cannot check it. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft reviews

Hey all - I posted these here last month, but was hoping if I could get more eyes on these drafts that have potential:

Thank you! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sum

A discussion of what to do with the redirect Sum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the name of the article summation is occurring at talk:summation -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sum listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sum. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 65.94.40.137 (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Ihor Voloshyn (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics&oldid=644251324"