Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nuvola apps edu mathematics.png
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:
Please add new topics at the bottom of the page and sign your posts.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click on the [show] link to the right of the question.

List of all archives

2009: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2010: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2011: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2012: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2013: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2014: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec
2015: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec

Policy on red-linked personal names in Math articles[edit]

In a recent edit, an IP user added yet another red linked item to the list of doctoral students in the infobox at Grigory Margulis. Do we have any policy in place regulating such matters? My own feeling is that infobox should not serve as a replacement for Math Genealogy or person's scientific biography (and bibliography), and in this case the list is already excessive (and also inaccurate). Personally, I would even be hesitant to add red linked names which are not likely to get their articles per our interpretation of WP:Notability to the main text. Arcfrk (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Re the students to list in infoboxes: my preference would be to include only bluelinks. As for whether to redlink names elsewhere in the article: Wikipedia:Red link says to do it when you believe the subject of the link to be notable even though no article exists, and I think that's a pretty good rule. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, David. Obviously, you and I are in agreement on this, but it would be nice to have a policy or a guideline addressing this issue (for infobox). In this particular instance, I have cleaned up the infobox, removing redlinked former students and two redlinked prizes. Arcfrk (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Kelvin–Stokes theorem[edit]

On the talk page, I have provided a more elementary, though admittedly less elegant, proof of the theorem, that is much more easily understood by elementary vector calculus students.

Generally, though, I think this article could use a lot of work (as many of you probably do). It should discuss some physical applications of it, such as the equivalence of the differential and integral forms of the 3rd and 4th of Maxwell's equations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Troublesome editor[edit]

[This here] concerns the math project as well, since Cuzkatzimhut (and also I) edit both math and physics articles. YohanN7 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not generally a fan of these refimprove templates. Often they are clearly wrong, and occasionally they can be disruptive, especially when there is disagreement about how many references are enough. An easy solution that avoids most of the drama is to add a footnote or two, and then remove the template. Sławomir
14:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It might be a vast improvement if the templates were reconfigured to go to the Talk pages, instead. They are frequently used for political purposes and by frustrated readers who decide to deface the entire page with ref templates, in the vague hope something they may lack the training to understand will lead them to the mother load reference that makes everything clear. Instead, 8 times out of 10, it is the WP article which is clearest. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Algebra over a field -> Algebra (mathematical object)[edit]

I was thinking of renaming Algebra over a field to Algebra (mathematical object), and also merge Algebra (ring theory) in there as well; then we could make it a WP:CONCEPTDAB. The concept of an algebra is fairly standard, apart from whether or not we assume unital / associative / commutative / finite-dimensional / over a field / over a commutative ring.. Basically an algebra is something that has an binary addition, binary multiplication, and a scalar multiplication of some kind. Since many readers probably don't quite know what they are looking for, and the precise definitions depend on the sources, I think we should have a broad concept article that covers all "algebras".

We also have Non-associative algebra and Associative algebra. I suppose a Nonassociative ring is trivially an algebra over Z, so we could naturally merge that article into Non-associative algebra.

Any objections to any of the above? Mark MacD (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of these types of merges. The problem is that objects which share formal similarities may appear in very different contexts, and merging can create an incoherent mess. Algebra over a field is already an impossibly broad topic, and besides, it would plainly be inadvisable to try to create an article on everything in mathematics called an "algebra". Would this article also subsume the article vertex operator algebra, whose subject is neither of those things? --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply; fair point about vertex algebras, but as I understand it, they are not considered to be "algebras". I still don't think Algebra (ring theory) should be a separate article. Someone else has tagged Algebra (ring theory) with a merge tag, and I would like to merge its content elsewhere. The most common mathematical concept of "an algebra" is not impossibly broad; I have just expanded on the brief explanation in the even-broader concept article called Algebra. Mark MacD (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
We have vector space as a separate article even though it is a special case of module (mathematics). This is how we do things in Wikipedia, even if that is against Bourbaki's style. This makes sense from the pedagogical point of view since students learn elementary topics before advanced topics (I know "topos" is more elementary than topological space but that's another issue).
It is true that algebra (ring theory) is underdeveloped; I think the article title is not helpful for fostering healthy development. What matters with these objects are really whether they are associative or not. Thus, it's better to have two articles associative algebra and nonassociative algebra and spread materials accordingly . -- Taku (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Taku, you were the one who added the merge tag to algebra (ring theory) in the first place! :-) I agree we should keep associative algebra and non-associative algebra separate from each other. Mark MacD (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think I wasn't clear about my position :) My proposal would be to have the three articles, and only those three, that are devoted to the topic of "algebra": (1) algebra over a field (2) associative algebra and (3) non-associative algebra. (1) covers both associative (e.g., a ring that is a vector space) and non-associative (e.g., Lie algebra) algebras, while (2), (3) are over an arbitrary (commutative) ring. There are going to be considerable overlaps between (1) and (2), (3). But I think that's ok for the reason mentioned above (mainly the pedagogical reason and here in Wikipedia we don't necessarily strive for the the strict implementation of the Bourbaki style). -- Taku (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I see; we're pretty much on the same page then. I've just merged Algebra (ring theory) into Algebra over a field. Somebody might like to check it. Cheers, Mark MacD (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Input needed[edit]

A recent dispute over content in List of female mathematicians escalated to the point where the page was protected; see Talk:List of female mathematicians#Joshi edit-warring and more general issues of line length and image inclusion and following sections. Input from more editors would be welcome. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Related to this, there is a new discussion starting over who should be included in the "mathematician" categories. Please see Talk:List of female mathematicians#Who is a mathematician? and contribute your opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC on definition of a mathematician[edit]

I started an RfC here on the issue mentioned by User:David Eppstein above. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

In other words, the discussion at Talk:List of female mathematicians has turned against Sammy, so he's going forum-shopping in hope of getting a more favorable audience. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not forum-shopping. The issue is obviously broader than that topic so I posted it at what I thought was the appropriate place. I linked to that discussion from the original one - I'm not hiding anything. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Order of a polynomial nominated for deletion[edit]

I have nominated for deletion Order of a polynomial. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of a polynomial. D.Lazard (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Missing mathematics journals[edit]

As a follow up to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2011/Jul#WP:JCW_and_mathematics, and the recent update to WP:JCW, here are the top-cited missing journals of mathematics.

Like previously mentionned in the old thread, there's also Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society which currently redirects to London Mathematical Society, but should really get it's own article. Same for the Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society and the Journal of the London Mathematical Society, which also redirect there. Journal of Algorithms seems to have a less-than-boring history, considering the board resigned en-masse at the behest of Donald Knuth as a way to protest the Elsevier prices. They went on to establish the ACM Transactions on Algorithms. See [1][2] for some sources on this, as well as the current content in the Elsevier article.

See WP:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide for guidance, and don't forget to add them to List of mathematics journals once they are created. Many thanks for all the help you can give us. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@CBM:, is your journal article script thing still available? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The journal article creation tool is defunct. It was a script in my web directory on the toolserver, which was decommissioned. I don't believe I have any copy of the source. But it was really just a small script to take information in a web form and format it into an article. I don't have enough time for web development these days, but a competent programmer could do it very quickly given a model of the articles that are being created. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission[edit]

What do you think of Draft:Biweight midcorrelation? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)