Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageDiscussionContentAssessmentParticipantsResources
WikiProject iconMathematics Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Note icon
Shortcut: WT:WPM

Craig S. Kaplan[edit]

Editors are concerned about a notability tag and there is a report at ANI. The report is rather premature as there do not appear to be any comments that would generally be considered unacceptable. Please join in at Talk:Craig S. Kaplan (the ANI report won't go anywhere). If participants here consider the subject to be notable (it looks that way to me), please remove the tag and tell anyone wanting to restore it to take the article to WP:AFD. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit war and content dispute at Interval (mathematics)[edit]

Third-party opinion would be welcome at Talk:Interval (mathematics)#New edits by 慈居. D.Lazard (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a long, text-book-like draft at AfC. We are having problems finding a knowledgeable editor to help the editor, Johsebb, get it into acceptable form. Help would be appreciated. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for John von Neumann[edit]

John von Neumann has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are two {{citation needed}} tags that I don't have the books on my shelf at the moment to fix immediately (but the text they're attached to doesn't seem controversial). XOR'easter (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One {{citation needed}} yet remains. I've tried my hand at reorganizing the article to make more clear what can be trimmed. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Specifically, the question is how to source this paragraph:

With the contributions of von Neumann to sets, the axiomatic system of the theory of sets avoided the contradictions of earlier systems and became usable as a foundation for mathematics, despite the lack of a proof of its consistency. The next question was whether it provided definitive answers to all mathematical questions that could be posed in it, or whether it might be improved by adding stronger axioms that could be used to prove a broader class of theorems.

--JBL (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an entirely uncontroversial claim that probably should never have been tagged "cn", but I added a source. –jacobolus (t) 19:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. It did seem like a statement that could equally well be supported by any of a bajillion books. XOR'easter (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess on the upside, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page I linked there (found via googling) is a pretty good summary which talks about Von Neumann's contributions and puts them in context, so would probably be useful to a hypothetical reader interested in following up on the section here. –jacobolus (t) 01:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The quote is obviously true. Completeness cannot be expected. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all the work that has been put into this. I don't think I'll have time to do more (and to be honest, the box-checking attitude on display has soured me the rest of the way from ever dealing with GA/FA business). XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

q-pseudoconvex, q-pseudoconcave, q-complete[edit]

I am adding references to the Andreotti–Grauert theorem and I am wondering where to explain the notions called q-pseudoconvex, q-pseudoconcave, q-complete. Since these notions were introduced by Andreotti-Grauert (1962), one way is to explain them in the Andreotti-Grauert theorem. In that case, it might be better to change the title of the article to Andreotti–Grauert theory, but it seems like the lead sentence needs to be rewritten. Also, I have no ideas for the lead sentence about Andreotti–Grauert theory. Another way is to explain q-pseudoconvex with pseudoconvexity and q-complete with Stein manifold, but I don't know where to explain q-pseudoconcave. SilverMatsu (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can anyone check my working at Talk:Alignments_of_random_points#Simplification, please? Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but surely the second, simplified form is a correct simplification of the first; if so, what mystifies me is why the original source wrote in it the original form. — The Anome (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]