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.

New or newly categorized articles at User:Mathbot/Changes to mathlists

Here are the latest new or newly categorized articles at User:Mathbot/Changes to mathlists:

November 18, 2016

Removed Nonagonal prism (is a redirect to Enneagonal prism)

Added Enneagonal prism

Added Ten Rays Model

---

Mathematicians:removed Jayadeva

Mathematicians:added Jianqing Fan

Mathematicians:added Jun Li

Mathematicians:added Lexing Ying

Mathematicians:added Ngaiming Mok

Mathematicians:added Zhouping Xin

November 17, 2016

Removed Damping (is a redirect to Harmonic oscillator)

Removed Enneagonal prism (is a redirect to Nonagonal prism)

Added Convergence group

Added Moser–de Bruijn sequence

Added Nonagonal prism

Added Stefan Bergman Prize

---

November 16, 2016

Removed Maximum common edge subgraph problem (is a redirect to Maximum common edge subgraph)

Removed Maximum common subgraph isomorphism problem (is a redirect to Maximum common subgraph)

Removed Multidimensional Empirical Mode Decomposition (is a redirect to Multidimensional empirical mode decomposition)

Added Bailey's method (root finding)

Added Furstenberg–Sárközy theorem

Added Maximum common edge subgraph

Added Maximum common induced subgraph

Added Multidimensional empirical mode decomposition

Added Slim lattice

Added Vector-radix FFT algorithm

---

Mathematicians:removed Donal O’Shea (is a redirect to Donal O'Shea)

Mathematicians:added Donal O'Shea

Mathematicians:added Edward Neuman

Mathematicians:added Ralph Kenna

Mathematicians:added Ravindra Bapat

Decision stream references discussion

IP editors (including, but not limited to, 46.39.231.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 46.39.231.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 46.39.231.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 46.39.231.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 103.28.36.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 62.119.167.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been aggressively adding references to the recent arXiv paper 1704.07657 and wikilinks to the neologism decision stream (this is a link to a draft article, there is no mainspace target). I've reverted perhaps 30 instances in the past few days; the only instance I know remains is at decision tree learning. I have not tried to communicate with any of the IPs. Anyone who wants to help out with any of the obvious associated tasks is very welcome to do so! --JBL (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Three IP addresses have now restored the spam in at least 13 articles, see e.g. [1]. Suggestions? --JBL (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Might be a appropriate to set some of the affected article to semiprotectipn if the problem persist. I've posted note with regard to sourcing policies at the draft.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: The IPs might be identical or related to User talk:AlexNet22, so i guess he might be another obvious point of contact.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, semi-protection would be good -- the additions have continued. If there is an administrator here who is interested, I can give a complete list of affected articles. I will try AlexNet22, although at this point I am probably not the best messenger. --JBL (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I have semiprotected a bunch of these (the ones I could find with multiple spam-revert cycles) for two weeks. Please me know if I missed any or if the problem recurs once the semiprotection expires. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much. A quick glance suggests you got them all. --JBL (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein:, one more: [2] --JBL (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. There was also another one you missed on Outline of machine learning. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear Joel,

Thanks for your comprehensive massages. Sorry, I've missed all discussions.

We'll wait for publication of the article and citation of decision stream technique in other official publications before change the draft Decision stream into the Wikipedia article and restore the work of several people, who cautiously added small fragments of text about decision stream into appropriate places of Wikipedia articles. It's a pity, that this information can't be available for interested readers of Wikipedia now.

Kind regards, AlexNet22 (talk)

By the way, it's funny to see how earnestly David Eppstein adds into draft massage: 'See related discussion re aggressive spamming of this non-notable new unpublished work at WT:WPM#Aggressive spamming of a recent arXiv posting, "decision streams"'

AlexNet22 (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

And now, a massage from Joel B Lewis. EEng 22:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Dear @AlexNet22:, thanks, the proposal you've outlined in your second paragraph sounds reasonable to me. If there are other papers that use this concept, it would be great to add more references to the draft. Also, it would be very helpful for others and for discussion purposes if you could try to edit from your account, rather than as a logged-out IP user, as much as possible. All the best, JBL (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

EEng, David Eppstein, I would like to suggest, in the spirit of WP:AGF, that as long as AlexNet22 and the IP users do not resume adding links to the preprint, it is ok to let the pointer on the draft go. (There is also a pointer to this page on the talk page; I will add a specific pointer to this discussion.) Thanks, JBL (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. I found your massage very relaxing, BTW. EEng 20:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I want to make sure that any reviewer who might consider approving the draft for mainspace knows about the issues. But if you think that other channels such as the draft's talk page are adequate for that purpose, then maybe the notice isn't necessary. I note, however, that the talk page has also been repeatedly blanked. Regardless, the draft does need to be clearly marked as a draft, so that readers don't think it's already an article. I will try adding {{Draft article}} instead. If AlexNet22 or his IP minions continue removing such notices, the only alternative may be to delete the draft altogether. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

David Eppstein, yes, this sounds totally reasonable. (And I intend to keep the draft on my watchlist, which I check fairly regularly.) Also thanks for moving the note there while I was distracted by real life :). EEng, my pleasure ;). --JBL (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, David. My commits don't contain any external link (your reason to remove my updates). Could you please restore committed information. AlexNet22 (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The spam warnings I left on your talk page are boilerplate designed more for external link spammers, but the warning itself applies equally well to your reference spamming. Why have you gone back to spamming your non-notable preprint across Wikipedia? Nothing has changed to give it more significance than it had a week ago. Stop your spam or get blocked. My advice would be to (1) find some other area within Wikipedia to contribute to, where you can apply your expertise but without any possibility of self-citation or other conflicts of interest, (2) work steadily on improving articles in that area for at least an entire year, refraining from any mention of your own work or close colleagues, and (3) once you have demonstrated that you are a good-faith contributor to Wikipedia and not just a self-promoter, and once your paper has had time to accumulate some impact (if it ever does), consider citing it only in those articles where it is most directly relevant (rather than, as now, anything even tangentially related). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear David,

1. This is not my preprint and I edit articles in the area, which corresponds to my professional knowledge.

2. I consider your actions against several editors only as a vandal actions.

Please restore the committed information ASAP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexNet22 (talk • contribs)

No. It's off-topic and it's spam. You stop. As for "I edit articles in the area": your contributions show that all you have done here involves spamming this preprint or discussing your spam, with no constructive contributions in this area. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Without been able to describe reason for his actions continuously reverts information submitted by different editors in appropriate places of articles: "Decision tree learning", "Pruning (decision trees)", "Directed acyclic graph", "Chi-square automatic interaction detection", "Predictive analytics", "Statistical classification". AlexNet22 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:ANI is thataway. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Yes, David aggressively deleted all my commits. He's just in a war against the idea of Decision stream provided by scientific community 62.119.167.36 (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It is rather the other way around. The decision stream prononents seem resistant to advice and are unwilling to read and understand and WP guideline and policies. Now there have been already a couple of experienced editors and not just David, who've asked you to change your behaviour and if you don't it will end up with a ban.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Since editors favoring inclusion seems to be under the misconception that this discussion provides some support for inclusion of this unpublished research in Wikipedia, I state unambiguously that I am opposed to its inclusion. In addition to my own opinion on the matter, the content under discussion violates Wikipedia policy, which requires that the material be published in reliable secondary sources (WP:PSTS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:NOR). Since the only source appears to be self-published, it fails these requirements on multiple fronts, and inclusion of these fringe views is clear WP:UNDUE weight to an insignificant minority viewpoint. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Sławomir,

Would you like to take into account opinion and fair work of new scientific community, which uses Decision stream in huge number of experiments and supports development of this direction. As well, it's good to see discussion of this situation, not just aggressive removing of information by David Eppstein. 31.44.94.244 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

No, we're not a publisher of original research. Secondary sources, such as academic books or review articles, are usually required. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If there are properly published papers (or textbook content) on decision streams then you may write an article on decision streams based on those. In addition you may link preprints on arxiv of already (journal) published articles or other digital copies. But writing an article or even just content pieces merely based on arxiv papers that not have been published elsewhere in a journal or book is an absolute no-go in WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I also take advantage of Decision stream in my work and have to say that AlexNet22 agreed to postponed an activity in Wikipedia until the article is published. But it was proposed "in the spirit of WP:AGF, that as long as AlexNet22 and the IP users do not resume adding links to the preprint, it is ok to let the pointer on the draft go". And David Eppstein replied "this sounds totally reasonable". But as soon as the most impotent information was restored (without links to the preprint) it was deleted. You are professionals we are - too. Lets have at least small respect to the work of scientific community, which is done twice and which was removed by Eppstein.

Thanks, 78.108.46.137 (talk) Dave

The arXiv preprint is where it always was, available for you to use and cite. And all I agreed to was to drop the comment about the aggressive spamming on the draft page and replace it with a standard draft template. I did not agree to allow wikilinks from articles to the draft (that would be against Wikipedia policy) and I did not agree to allow the decision streaming content back onto Wikipedia article space. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doesn't understand the discussion, but aggressively deletes the commits of editors 78.108.46.137 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Dave

I believe that JBL's reasonable suggestion has been misconstrued and has formed the basis of this most recent round of spamming sans links. There is clearly a language problem here and perhaps we need to be a little more explicit in our explanations. Wikipedia is not the place to publish new ideas and novel methods, the editors here are obliged to remove material of that nature which has not appeared in some published form that has been vetted by the scientific community. David Eppstein is not being aggressive with these reverts, he is just carrying out the community guidelines of Wikipedia. If David wasn't doing this then some other editors would be (I would for instance); he's just faster than the rest of us. As individuals, we are not antagonistic to new and developing ideas, but Wikipedia is just not the right venue for presenting them. When, and if, these concepts meet our criteria for inclusion, we will be happy to do so and assist you in creating a good article, but until then you must abide by our guidelines.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, Bill. Let's consider the issue's been closed. Of course, we are not against the Wikipedia rules 78.108.46.137 (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC) Dave

Dears, hope nobody is against the change of the title of the topic to the more tolerant - "Decision stream references discussion" (except David Eppstein, who is always against) 31.44.94.244 (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please, stop this vandal, who doesn't have common sense, doesn't understand the Wikipedia tolerance policy, and just aggressively moves against idea of Decision stream in all possible ways 31.44.94.244 (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Epstein's undoing is perfectly legitimate. The only vandalism, here, is yours, which consists of changing headings without good reasons and without consensus. D.Lazard (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please, ask Joel about the change of original title and, please, be tolerant not like this vandal - David Eppstein 62.119.167.36 (talk)

• I think it is appropriate that the first to change should have asked, I just restored it again. Furthermore, I object to your use of this vandal in this context here. Purgy (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Please, stop your aggressive actions.

Looks like David Eppstein asks his friend to help him in this aggression 31.44.94.244 (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Please, take notice that I do not consider restoring of content not violating respectable rules as an aggressive act, whereas I am convinced that insisting on calling others vandals for their taking care of WP guidelines is plain aggression, restoring this aggression is still more aggressive.
• Please, also take notice that I did not even exchange cards with any of the concerned people around here, so it is ridiculous to assume, I had been called upon for my act, which I, as mentioned already, do not allow to be called aggressive, nota bene as a friend. Purgy (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear D.Lazard, several editors marked David Eppstein as vandal, due to his extraordinary aggressiveness. Please, don't edit their opinion by request of your friend! 46.39.231.235 (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

And none of it matters, because this is clear meat- or sock-puppetry, and his edits do not fall under the definition of 'vandalism'. You've already been pointed in the correct direction multiple times, pretending otherwise is disruptive.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

To the IP editor (and sock puppets): Please see the rule against more than three reverts on the same page within 24 hours at WP:3RR. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Joel B. Lewis, could you please approve the change of this topic title to "Decision stream references discussion". Unfortunately, AlexNet22 is not available now, so I ask you directly. 62.119.167.36 (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC) Jane

counter broken - "31444"

The counter on the project page has been stuck at 31444 for a long time. Can someone explain how the counter works and suggest how we might get it started working again? Arided (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

call for abstracts

Posting this here since it would be great if someone could come along and talk about Wikipedia's mathematical culture.

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS (deadline: 30th June 2017)

ENABLING MATHEMATICAL CULTURES, University of Oxford, 5th-7th December 2017

This workshop celebrates the completion of the EPSRC-funded project “Social Machines of Mathematics”, led by Professor Ursula Martin at the University of Oxford. We will present research arising from the project, and bring together interested researchers who want to build upon and complement our work. We invite interested researchers from a broad range of fields, including: Computer Science, Philosophy, Sociology, History of Mathematics and Science, Argumentation theory, and Mathematics Education. Through such a diverse mix of disciplines we aim to foster new insights, perspectives and conversations around the theme of Enabling Mathematical Cultures.

Our intention is to build upon previous events in the “Mathematical Cultures” series. These conferences explored diverse topics concerning the socio-cultural, historical and philosophical aspects of mathematics. Our workshop will, likewise, explore the social nature of mathematical knowledge production, through analysis of historical and contemporary examples of mathematical practice. Our specific focus will be on how social, technological and conceptual tools are developed and transmitted, so as to enable participation in mathematics, as well as the sharing and construction of group knowledge in mathematics. In particular, we are interested in the way online mathematics, such as exhibited by the Polymath Projects, MathOverflow and the ArXiv, enable and affect the mathematical interactions and cultures.

We hereby invite the submission of abstracts of up to 500 words for papers to be presented in approximately 30 minutes (plus 10 minutes Q+A). The Enabling Mathematical Cultures workshop will have space on Days 2 and 3 of the meeting for a number of accepted talks addressing the themes of social machines of mathematics, mathematical collaboration, mathematical practices, ethnographic or sociological studies of mathematics, computer-assisted proving, and argumentation theory as applied in the mathematical realm. Please send your abstracts to Fenner.Tanswell@Gmail.com by the deadline of the 30th June 2017.

The event takes place in the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford on 5th, 6th and 7th December 2017, with a dinner on 5th December and an informal supper on 6th December.

The focus of Day 1 will be on success, failure and impact of foundational research with an emphasis on history and long term development. Days 2 and 3 will focus on studies of contemporary and prospective mathematical cultures from sociological, philosophical, educational and computational perspectives.

Confirmed speakers include: Andrew Aberdein, Michael Barany, Alan Bundy, Joe Corneli, Matthew Inglis, Lorenzo Lane, Ursula Martin, Dave Murray-Rust, Alison Pease and Fenner Tanswell.

Organising Committee: Ursula Martin, Joe Corneli, Lorenzo Lane, Fenner Tanswell, Sarah Baldwin, Brendan Larvor, Benedikt Loewe, Alison Pease

Further information will be added to the website at https://enablingmaths.wordpress.com

Previous "Mathematical Cultures" events can be found here: https://sites.google.com/site/mathematicalcultures/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arided (talk • contribs)

Euler–Boole summation

Euler–Boole summation could use work if it's worth keeping.

Summation method redirects to Divergent series. But Euler–Boole summation says that that is a "summation method", but it seems to end up being about a series with only finitely many terms. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lueroth constant

Back in May, the community decided that our page on the "Alladi–Grinstead constant" ought to go. In the discussion there, I noted that if the decision was to delete, then Lueroth constant should go as well. I've now PRODed it accordingly. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-technical summary of Wiles' proof of FLT. Review requested.

The page has long lacked a summary that someone lacking group theory and beyond can grasp. Based on several descriptions of the proof, I've summarized it in a manner that would probably scandalize a pedant :) but should be roughly right and quite helpful to very many readers. As it's a huge proof, this is about the level of detail needed to make the basic approach accessible to those lacking advanced mathematics and to educate on it.

Due to its technical nature, I'd really appreciate eyeballs and review to check the technical accuracy, and see if there's areas it can be improved while remaining widely accessible.

Thank you.

Link: Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem#Non-technical summary of Wiles'_proof.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd quibble with the use of the word "Non-technical" in the section heading; a curious reader who just dropped in after watching an old NOVA special on YouTube or the like would still find it pretty heavy going. I think calling the section just "Summary of Wiles' proof" (or "Outline of Wiles' proof", etc.) would be fine. XOR'easter (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Group orders of ${\mathbb {Z}}^{n}$

The section title above, Group orders of ${\mathbb {Z}}^{n}$, appears in the article titled Lexicographic order. My experience has been that TeX in section headings fails to appear in the article's table of contents. But this on appeared. Is this a recent software improvement? Does it depend on how the user's preferences are set, or on which browser is used? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

. . . and now I see a part of the answer: This appears in the table of contents when I'm logged out, but not when I'm logged in. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

. . . also links to such a section do not work properly (for example, the link to this thread in my watchlist). In fact, this behaviour is very similar to what is described in MOS:HEAD for misplaced invisible comments. IMO, MOS:HEAD must be expanded for warning about this. D.Lazard (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ω-validity

There is a redirect, Ω-validity, that is causing a bit of trouble. Procedurally, maybe this should be raised at WP:RFD, but I don't think that's the best venue for a technical discussion.

Here's the background as I can reconstruct it:

• A long time ago, someone put in the validity article a discussion of a concept called "ω-validity". It looked like pretty much nonsense to me.
  • It claimed that a sentence was said to be n-valid if it was true in every interpretation having a universe with exactly n elements. That part is plausible enough, though I've never encountered it. Could be in the literature somewhere, or could be someone's OR.
  • Then it went on to say that a sentence was ω-valid if it's true in every interpretation, and has an interpretation with an infinite universe. That part seems to be nonsense. If it's true in every interpretation, then as there always is an interpretation with an infinite universe, the second part is trivial.
• Then at some point the ω got upcased to Ω. That led to confusion with Ω-logic, and the creation of this redirect and subsequent retargeting, involving User:CBM and User:Omnipedista. Oops — that should be User:Omnipaedista.
• There does in fact exist a concept of Ω-validity that is related to Ω-logic, although the Ω-logic article does not discuss it. See for example http://www2.units.it/episteme/L&PS_Vol3No1/bellotti_L&PS_Vol3No1.pdf. I don't know whether this is worth discussing in the Ω-logic article, which is a very brief view from 30,000 feet and has almost no technical details (if you think it does, that just proves you haven't tried to learn about Ω-logic :-) ). I suppose the article could be expanded, and it might be worth treating in that case, but unfortunately Woodin's project that led to the identification of Ω-logic in the first place seems to have failed. Given that, together with the enormous technical difficulty of the subject, I have some doubts that anyone will ever really want to do it.

So, what to do with Ω-validity and Ω-valid (another redirect pointing to the same article)? Keep in mind that titles are not case-sensitive in the first letter, so ω-validity and ω-valid point to the same place as Ω-validity and Ω-valid respectively, and this unfortunately cannot be changed. (I tried to argue years ago that we should have case-sensitivity when the first letter is non-Latin, but that went nowhere fast.) --Trovatore (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no expertise in the mathematics content, but if title case conversion prevents disambiguation, then this probably needs a disambiguation page, as it done with Omega-logic. That is, make Ω-validity, Ω-valid, Omega-valid, etc., redirects to a dab page to direct readers to the proper Ω- or ω- topics. --Mark viking (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that might be part of the solution. Is there a standard notion of ω-validity to point to? I could guess that it means something like "true in every ω-model", although one then wants to ask, ω-model of what. I'm not sure you can make sense of ω-models without requiring that the model satisfy some minimal fragment of set theory or arithmetic. Maybe you can; I haven't thought about it very deeply. Or maybe it could mean "provable without using any non-logical axioms, but allowing ω-rule". These notions are probably not the same, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are both attested in the literature, though I do not remember encountering either of them. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: Seems I made a mistake — Ω-logic does in fact discuss Ω-validity. So it's a reasonable redirect, unless we also need to address ω-validity. Do we? --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

How about this edit? --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems fine as far as it goes. I tried looking for ω-valid on Google Scholar to get a sense of the urgency of the problem. I'm thinking "not very urgent". The highest hits are irrelevant (accidental juxtapositions), and the Woodin notion with the uppercase Ω shows up before any relevant hit with lowercase ω. There are two relevant hits on the first page, which are probably not the same notion: http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-11512-7.pdf#page=216 and http://www.springerlink.com/index/u66p0010q2161181.pdf. If someone wants to write about one of those, we can revisit the issue, but for now I think we're OK without a target for lowercase ω-valid. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Red links in List of Italian mathematicians

An editor removed all red links from List of Italian mathematicians with the edit summary "rm non notable. Must have their own wiki page to be included" I reverted the edit on the grounds that red links in such lists were essential to encourage creation of new articles, only to be reverted again, this time with edit summary "violation of WP:V". Is there removal of red links appropriate? 223.227.124.160 (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Usually, in lists of indeterminate size such as this one, we need a rule that we are listing only the notable members rather than all of them: only notable Italian mathematicians, not just anyone who is Italian and a mathematician. (See WP:CSC.) Sometimes that means only bluelinks, and sometimes that means that redlinks can be ok if they are clearly notable and include footnotes justifying their notability. But having a redlink farm without sources in article space is probably a mistake. In the diff you link to from last February, only unsourced redlinks were removed — the names that didn't have articles yet here, but did have articles in the Italian Wikipedia, were left in place. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

How does one LaTeXify semantics around here?

Hi. For "semantics of X" I normally use (a macro using) \llbracket and \rrbracket, which seem not to exist on Wikipedia. I can hack it with negative spaces, like so, [\![ X ]\!] :$[\![X]\!]$, but I fear for my sanity if I have to do that too often. I checked Denotational semantics to see how the authors survived, and they cheated by using the symbols in UTF8 in the running text, which does not help me in math mode. Is there a sanity-preserving way of doing semantics symbols in math mode? — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 17:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Theorem of the unique homomorphic extension

The article titled Theorem of the unique homomorphic extension is in terrible shape. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Glasser's master theorem

I have created a new article titled Glasser's master theorem.

The following tasks could improve it:

• Concrete examples of integrals to which it is applicable;
• Other articles linking to it;
• Maybe a proof? Or maybe not?;
• etc.

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's the easy part of linking other articles to it:

• Glasser's Master Theorem (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlomilch substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlömilch substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlömilch transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlömilch substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlomilch substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlömilch transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlomilch transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlomilch transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlomilch Substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlomilch Substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlömilch Substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlömilch Substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlömilch Transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlömilch Transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlomilch Transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlomilch Transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

Michael Hardy (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)