Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics
| Main page | Discussion | Content | Assessment | Participants | Resources |
 | Mathematics Project‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Are Wikipedia's mathematics articles targeted at professional mathematicians?
No, we target our articles at an appropriate audience. Usually this is an interested layman. However, this is not always possible. Some advanced topics require substantial mathematical background to understand. This is no different from other specialized fields such as law and medical science. If you believe that an article is too advanced, please leave a detailed comment on the article's talk page. If you understand the article and believe you can make it simpler, you are also welcome to improve it, in the framework of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Why is it so difficult to learn mathematics from Wikipedia articles?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be pedagogic treatments of their topics. Readers who are interested in learning a subject should consult a textbook listed in the article's references. If the article does not have references, ask for some on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Wikipedia's sister projects Wikibooks which hosts textbooks, and Wikiversity which hosts collaborative learning projects, may be additional resources to consider. See also: Using Wikipedia for mathematics self-study Why are Wikipedia mathematics articles so abstract?
Abstraction is a fundamental part of mathematics. Even the concept of a number is an abstraction. Comprehensive articles may be forced to use abstract language because that language is the only language available to give a correct and thorough description of their topic. Because of this, some parts of some articles may not be accessible to readers without a lot of mathematical background. If you believe that an article is overly abstract, then please leave a detailed comment on the talk page. If you can provide a more down-to-earth exposition, then you are welcome to add that to the article. Why don't Wikipedia's mathematics articles define or link all of the terms they use?
Sometimes editors leave out definitions or links that they believe will distract the reader. If you believe that a mathematics article would be more clear with an additional definition or link, please add to the article. If you are not able to do so yourself, ask for assistance on the article's talk page. Why don't many mathematics articles start with a definition?
We try to make mathematics articles as accessible to the largest likely audience as possible. In order to achieve this, often an intuitive explanation of something precedes a rigorous definition. The first few paragraphs of an article (called the lead) are supposed to provide an accessible summary of the article appropriate to the target audience. Depending on the target audience, it may or may not be appropriate to include any formal details in the lead, and these are often put into a dedicated section of the article. If you believe that the article would benefit from having more formal details in the lead, please add them or discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Why don't mathematics articles include lists of prerequisites?
A well-written article should establish its context well enough that it does not need a separate list of prerequisites. Furthermore, directly addressing the reader breaks Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. If you are unable to determine an article's context and prerequisites, please ask for help on the talk page. Why are Wikipedia's mathematics articles so hard to read?
We strive to make our articles comprehensive, technically correct and easy to read. Sometimes it is difficult to achieve all three. If you have trouble understanding an article, please post a specific question on the article's talk page. Why don't math pages rely more on helpful YouTube videos and media coverage of mathematical issues?
Mathematical content of YouTube videos is often unreliable (though some may be useful for pedagogical purposes rather than as references). Media reports are typically sensationalistic. This is why they are generally avoided. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The quote is obviously true. Completeness cannot be expected. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Simplification[edit]
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)