Talk:List of important publications in mathematics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Formatting[edit]

The formatting used in this article seems to be completely random. Some headers are topics, some are books, and these is no coherent organization or hierarchy to them. To add to the confusion, sometimes books are not written in italics and sometimes they aren't. Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see the article follow the style guidelines at WikiProject Bibliographies. Titles should always be in italics. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, all the titles are section headers, but vary from level 3 to 5. The MOS says that normally, section headings should not contain links. Since many of the article titles do have links, it would be better to present them as bulleted lists. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the heading level of all the book titles to 5. I have also increased the TOC depth to 3: this illustrates a basic problem with the current style. Look at section 4 (Analysis). Even though Introductio in analysin infinitorum is a level 5 header, it is numbered as level 3 because there are no level 3 or 4 headers preceding it. That puts Introductio at the same level as Calculus and other level 3 headers below it. I don't know of any way of adjusting the TOC controls to fix this. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Kantorovich invented simplex?[edit]

This page says that Kantorovich invented the simplex method. I've always heard that Kantorovich was one of the first to formulate problems as LPs, but the simplex method was due to Dantzig. Neither Kantorovich's page nor the simplex method's page describe Kantorovich as the inventor. Why does this page say so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinBuchanan (talkcontribs) 13:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That entry was added way back on March 22, 2005 by Bharathrangarajan (talk · contribs · logs). It doesn't seem that anyone else bothered to validate the content. — Myasuda (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the false assertion. Thanks for pointing it out. — Myasuda (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Needs consistent date and era conventions[edit]

Dates are given in arbitrary-seeming styles. For example, a few successive entries have:

1.1.1 Baudhayana Sulba Sutra

Baudhayana (8th century BC) …

1.1.2 The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art

The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art from the 10th–2nd century BCE. …

1.1.3 The Sea Island Mathematical Manual

Liu Hui (220-280) …

1.1.4 The Mathematical Classic of Sun Zi

Sunzi (5th century) …

1.1.5 Aryabhata

Aryabhata (499 CE) …

1.1.6 Jigu Suanjing

Jigu Suanjing (626AD) …

1.1.7 Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta

Brahmagupta (628 AD)

Is it fair to call this a mess? Well, anyway, it's a mess. I propose to change all dates to use the common era style:
either:

9999 BCE 

or:

9999 CE

or (when unambiguous) just:

9999

– where the 9's indicate digits 0 to 9 with suppression of any leading zeroes. Here are relevant bits of the MoS for date formatting:

  • Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article. …

and

  • In general, do not use CE or AD unless required to avoid ambiguity …

Following these conventions, we would have instead:

1.1.1 Baudhayana Sulba Sutra

Baudhayana (8th century BCE) …

1.1.2 The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art

The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art from the 10th to 2nd century BCE. …

1.1.3 The Sea Island Mathematical Manual

Liu Hui (220-280 CE) …

1.1.4 The Mathematical Classic of Sun Zi

Sunzi (5th century CE) …

1.1.5 Aryabhata

Aryabhata (499 CE) …

1.1.6 Jigu Suanjing

Jigu Suanjing (626 CE) …

1.1.7 Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta

Brahmagupta (628 CE)

You'll note that I've retained the "CE" for dates in the last two millennia, since we can't assume the general reader would know in which era any of these authors flourished.

Thoughts? yoyo (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Tabular form for list articles[edit]

Would it be better to convert this list article to tabular form? The only reason I can see for doing so would be to allow the reader to sort by date, author or mathematical discipline (field). But would the first of these need us to use Astronomical year numbering to sort correctly? yoyo (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)