From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Mathematics was one of the Mathematics good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
B Class
Top Importance
 Field: General
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.

why no mention of Aryabhatta?[edit]

Aryabhatta was Indian mathematician and astronomer who is credited for early use of decimal system & zero without which modern maths isn't possible and we would have been sick with Roman numerals.

Albert Einstein: "We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Du 409 (talkcontribs) 05:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Āryabhaṭīya is discussed in the history of mathematics article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Venn diagram image colors[edit]

Does anyone else think that the Venn diagram used to represent set theory under Foundations and philosophy in the section Fields of mathematics, would fit better if it were not color-coded, considering the images used to represent other fields? It's a stark contrast against a sea of black and white that stands out quite a bit. — Fuebar [talk | cont] 21:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, right now. There are other color images in the respective fields below the one you refer to, such as the Rubik's cube; an all-B&W gallery instead would stick out just as much, when compared to the other galleries. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


that's disgusting, and yes I'm aware it's in the archive. In common informal speech it's one thing, appropriate in that register. Here not. Lycurgus (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we can treat the matter more dispassionately; I don't see any need to get "disgusted". But I would support removing the "often shortened to..." clause from the first sentence, and I don't feel any strong need to mention "math" or "maths" anywhere else in the article either. --Trovatore (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Why not go whole hog with some "mafs"? Lycurgus (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the short forms "math" and "maths" are both noted prominently in the mathematics articles of OED and MathWorld. Mgnbar (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The OED is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. MathWorld is a terrible example for almost anything. --Trovatore (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Since the common speech versions redirect to this article, I believe it important they be mentioned near the top. And I truly don't understand your (even if toned down) aversion to having them mentioned. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Redirected terms should be mentioned if it is otherwise reasonably likely that readers would be surprised to end up at a given article. "Wait a minute, I searched for infundibulum; why did I wind up at Kurt Vonnegut?" (Not an actual example but just to give the idea.)
For "math" and "maths", I don't think that's very likely. Anyone entering those terms into the search box already knows what they are short for, and will arrive at the intended article.
I just don't see the point of mentioning them at all. This is not a dictionary, so we don't need to talk much about the word. I'm fine with a blurb about the etymology; that gives actual information, even if it's not information about mathematics. But why do we need to talk about the informal versions? It's just a distraction that conveys very little information that a reader cannot already be assumed to know, unless it's "look at those funny Yanks (Brits); they spell maths (math) wrong", which is something that IMO is better omitted from an article on mathematics. --Trovatore (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Also there's a tiny but non-zero chance I placed it. I do use that in speech, and I've not checked the log for the origin. CYA. Lycurgus (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)