Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2006/Aug

Prerequisites

I was reading an amusing interchange on the talk page for Lie groups just now. (Sorry, I don't know how to link to the specific section in the talk page. Maybe someone can help me with that.) Anyway, a user who clearly didn't understand the complexity of Lie group theory was trying to suggest that the page was worthless. This user suggested that the complexity of the article meant that the uninitiated could not follow it and the initiated didn't need it since they knew it already.

While I vehemently disagree with these sentiments, the discussion did lead me to think that maybe we need some system by which we can communicate prerequisites to those seeking information on a topic for the first time. No textbook would ever discuss Lie groups without either mentioning in the preface the need for a solid background in smooth manifolds, or else providing a reasonably comprehensive introduction to the subject in the book itself. I fully realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a textbook. Nevertheless, a newcomer to Lie groups should know first thing that they ought to be comfortable with smooth manifolds (and probably some group theory too) before attempting to read (let alone criticize) an article on Lie groups. (I am thinking about this for all math topics, not just Lie groups, of course.)

What do y'all think? VectorPosse 05:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link you want is to Talk:Lie group#is this useful?. I am not familiar with templates, but perhaps we need a template for pointing to another article containing the prerequisites for reading the current article. JRSpriggs 06:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with putting any list of prerequisites on top of articles.
First, if a user never heard of differential geometry before, and complains that Lie group is hard to read, he/she has only himself/herself to blame. Reminds me of somebody who complained that logarithm is a useless article, because that person could not find a motivation for that article to exist.
Second, a well-written article should have a good introduction, and relevant links to other subjects should be embedded in context. That's encyclopedic.
All in all, while I strongly agree that articles should be accessible, boxes of prerequisites are not the solution. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia article is not a textbook, nor even a chapter of a textbook. Also, the web of knowledge admits no simple linear ordering. We get complaints about mathematics articles being opaque on a regular basis. The appropriate response depends on the state of the article, and on the topic.
People can arrive at an article in many ways. Perhaps they were searching the web for a word or phrase. Perhaps they were reading another article that thought this would be a useful link, either for background or enrichment. Maybe someone overheard the topic in a conversation and wanted to get a feel for what it's about. Or maybe someone has a text that is less than clear to them and thought Wikipedia could help. (We wish!)
Sound like a challenge? It is. A good mathematics article on a popular topic is especially hard. If that topic includes a modicum of technical difficulty, look out. If lots of people think they know something about it, the editing can get controversial.
Unfortunately, "Lie group" should be a major service article. It needs an introduction that a high school student can handle, but also needs to touch on material that can occupy months of graduate study.
We never want to say "if you haven't studied group theory and differentiable manifolds, go away". And what about matrices, since many of our examples occur as subgroups of GL(n,R)? No, prerequisites are unacceptable.
What might be more helpful is a "related topics" box. We would want to indicate something about the nature of the relationship, and we would need to avoid the temptation to link everything to everything. But I think it could be a major project to begin augmenting our articles in this way, and I'm not sure who would do it. Meanwhile, we do have a "Categories" area at the bottom of the page, which means it is often overlooked. --KSmrqT 09:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I initiated the discussion without any preconceived notion of what might be a "good" or "bad" way to approach the idea, but now that I've seen some of the discussion, I would tend to agree with Oleg Alexandrov. A well-written introduction can and should refer to the subjects that are required without causing any great disruption to the thousands of pages that already exist. (Having said that, many such pages probably do need better introductions. The more abstruse pages seem very far removed from their basic categories.)

I do not think that prerequisites suggest "go away". If presented correctly, they should come across as helpful. Those who are curious about an advanced topic will try to read the article anyway (and this is a good thing), but at least they are informed as to why the article is confusing to them and where they can go for more basic information. I think there are unintimidating ways of writing an introduction that communicate the essence of a topic, but at the same time point the reader toward articles which may be more appropriate for their level. I would guess that this is an ideal that we can all get behind. VectorPosse 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a good time to mention that we do have a Manual of Style specifically for mathematics, and that the first piece of advice offered is:
"Probably the hardest part of writing a mathematical article (actually, any article) is the difficulty of addressing the level of mathematical knowledge on the part of the reader. For example, when writing about a field, do we assume that the reader already knows group theory? A general approach is to start simple, then move toward more abstract and technical statements as the article proceeds."
In my experience, the advice is accurate, but no substitute for experience! Anyway, perhaps that article will help. --KSmrqT 23:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge: "Bicomplex number" into "Tessarine"

Hello. I recently came across the article bicomplex number, which appear isomorphic to tessarines. The latter appear the first use of this arithmetic, and all properties listed in "bicomplex number" are already contained in "tessarine". Another complication is that when Hamilton's quaternions were still new, some also referred to them as "bicomplex number" (but I have not seen this term used for quaternions in articles in the past 100 years). See also talk:bicomplex number.

As a suggestion, we could have bicomplex number redirect to tessarine, and add the isomorphism (with the one reference) there. The tessarine article itself needs some minor work, e.g. to list its algebraic properties first and then refer to isomorphic numbers (I acknowledge having contributed to this disorder while working on rewriting hypercomplex number; sorry for that, I simply haven't gotten to clean up "tessarine" yet).

Any comment, concern, or help is appreciated. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 13:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After finding at least four different uses of the term "bicomplex number" within just a few hours, we may be looking at (yet another) term that appears to have been used freely in mathematics, where each use was apparently clear within the context of the particular program where it was used. Similar to the use of "hypercomplex number". Well that's just great. I hope for the future that the internet, and in particular establishments like Wikipedia and full-text search, will give authors better tools to research existing terminology when scoping out naming for something they deem "new". Therefore, maybe we should rather make the "bicomplex number" article in a way that disambiguates all these uses. A simple disambiguation may not be enough, because one may want to write a few sentences for each section. Oh well. Thanks for any comment or additional information (see also talk:bicomplex number. Jens Koeplinger 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the current version of the bicomplex number article stub refers to a special type of the multicomplex number program, and appears to be widely used. Therefore, I've added a new multicomplex number stub, with some barebone description, and updated some references and isomorphisms. So the bicomplex number article is really for keepers, but we must also provide reference to the other uses. One use (synonym to quaternions) is outdated and can be referenced as such, another use is actually from a compound term "variational bicomplex" and we can provide a link to this different area (which doesn't exist yet in Wikipedia). I'll follow-up on the one remaining use (appears to be initiated by Aristophanes Dimakis and Folkert Müller-Hoissen about 6 years ago), as name for an algebra program. - - - Thanks for your patience in reading my monologues here; though I'd always be glad for *any* kind of feedback. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the article Hypernumber (redirected from Conic quaternion) states the following: "Conic quaternions are isomorphic to tessarines". I have to confess ignorance as to the proper terminology in this area, but this should be taken into account if true, or corrected if wrong. --LambiamTalk 01:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, just updated, thanks for letting me know. For reference on the term "conic quaternion" see e.g. the preprint http://www.kevincarmody.com/math/sedenions1.pdf . Thanks, Jens Koeplinger

Hypernumbers crackpottery

From the immediately preceding discussion I stumbled upon the article on hypernumbers which is, at best, incomprehensible (to me being a mathematician) and probably plain crackpottery. Nowhere does the article state what hypernumbers actually are (presumably certain finite-dimensional algebras over the real numbers, but what properties are sought of them is left entirely unstated), nor is the linked site http://www.kevincarmody.com/math/hypernumbers.html any clearer. (On the other hand, it does contain such ridiculous statements as "New kinds of number [sic] will likewise give rise to new areas of science." or "This enables great advances in consciousness and matter." (page 15 of http://www.kevincarmody.com/math/hypernumberreference.pdf — which claims to be a reference but still does not explain what hypernumbers are).)

The only reference we are given are the papers of a certain Charles A. Musès, all published in Appl. Math. Comput., so I looked them up in MathSciNet and the reviews are eloquent enough (indeed, most reviewers flatly decline to comment, or seem to have found them hilariously funny); in fact, such sentences from the articles are quoted as: "How can any mathematician doubt where the source of new creativity in mathematics lies? […] We suggest that hypernumbers in our unrestricted sense are the key to a coming and deeper nuclear mathematics; that their explanation and delineation will mark as great a step as did the implications of nuclear structure in modern physics." (this is from "Hypernumbers II. Further concepts and computational applications", Appl. Math. Comput. 4 (1978), 45–66). Obviously C. Musès found the editors or referees of Appl. Math. Comput. sympathetic to his kind of crackpottery.

It would be nice to have the Wikipedia article deleted, but as it is nearly impossible to suppress an article, I guess we should just put up a banner of some kind. Ideally, the article would be reduced to a sentence such as: "Hypernumbers are a 16-dimensional non-associative algebra over the real numbers (or certain subalgebras thereof) which was studied by Charles A. Musès who believed in their application to physics, biology and engineering." Perhaps with a description of the generators and relations of the algebra, if anybody can make sense out of them.

(I don't have time to fight this battle or to argue with crackpots, so I'm just writing to make sure other participants are aware of this.) --Gro-Tsen 11:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence is remarkable. I thought I had filtered the properties of certain hypernumber types from all of the rest Musès wrote. The filter I applied was that at least two people had published about it (C. Musès and K. Carmody), and that I could understand and confirm it from defining relations. I find Mr. Carmody's works on hypernumber arithmetic clear, sound, and well written. I find the focus on multiplicative modulus of a number interesting, do believe they qualify as their own number system, and do not believe that deletion of the article is an improvement. How do we deal with a situation where the person who discovered something gives ridiculous and even derogatory statements, throws out statements and "proofs" that don't work? I do not find Musès' articles funny, I am actually frequently offended by them. To my knowledge, though, it was him who found the real powers and logarithm of (the non-real root of +1 that is also part of split-complex algebra), and it was K. Carmody who found sedenions with a multiplicative modulus. As far as I can see, what's currently on the Wikipedia page "works" ... What do we do? Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 15:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think for a start, we should define hypernumbers. I don't understand after reading the article what they are, and I followed the link to Carmody's page, and I can't tell from what he has there what they are either. Everything that is written seems to assume that the reader is familiar with the definition. Take the subsection Hypernumber#Epsilon numbers, from which no one could deduce what an epsilon number is, what epsilon itself is, and what it means for them to be the third level in the program. Not to mention that the seemingly fundamedntal idea of "power orbit" is referenced everywhere but never described (I suppose it means "all powers of a number", but the terminology is new to me, and confusing). I have to say that everything in the article strikes me as typical of what crackpot ideas I've seen: a confusing and grandiose compilation of claimed results without clear definitions, consistent notation, or verifiable statements. Of course, that's the way the articles on Carmody's page are written too, so it's not necessarily your fault...but if there doesn't exist a coherent account of this stuff I would say it's the work of a crackpot. However, if it's been published it may be "notable", so at the very least it would then be our duty to figure out what "it" is in the first place. Ryan Reich 20:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great to me. I recognize that the article is not well structured and lacks clarity, and it would be wonderful if it could be improved. What about adding an "algebra stub" notice on the article, to highlight that the article cannot remain in its current form? Thank you very much for pointing out several weaknesses. While we may have trouble finding a definition of hypernumbers in general (Musès did not provide one ...), we can put the numbers that are currently stated on the page on defining relations. We could say "Musès conceived hypernumbers as [...thisandthat...] Select examples are [...]" and so on. As for the definitions that are missing, epsilon is a non-real base number with and is identical to j from split-complex algebra. The "power orbit" of a number b is with real. Maybe it would make sense to have two sections in the article, the first section focusing on the hypernumber types containing reals, imaginaries, and bases, and then a section that gives a briefer overview over the three other types currently listed. Well, let me put the stub notice out there for now, hopefully we'll get more responses (possibly on talk:hypernumber?). Thanks a lot, Jens Koeplinger 01:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already the article on split-complex numbers seems of dubious interest to me: most unfortunately it does not mention the (obvious) fact that, by the Chinese remainder theorem, "split-complex numbers" / "epsilon numbers" can be identified with pairs of real numbers with termwise addition and multiplication (I mean, not only are they a two-dimensional algebra over the reals, but actually they are the direct product of two copies of the real numbers), which makes them sort of boring (why bother about the product of two copies of the reals, not arbitrary tuples?); the identification takes the pair to (the number is called in the article on split-complex numbers; and it's a trivial exercise to see that this is indeed an isomorphism). (Also, incidentally, the article is wrong in stating that split-complex numbers have nilpotents: they don't, they have divisors of zero but no nilpotents.) I'm stating all this to refute the idea that the number is an interesting object. As to it's "power orbit", i.e., a one-parameter subgroup, once we have identified split-complex numbers with pairs of real numbers as I explained, and the number with the pair , it is clear that one-parameter subgroups all lie in one connected component (both coordinates positive) of the multiplicative group of invertible split-complex numbers, and is not there, so it does not have a "power orbit" (no more than -1 has in the real numbers). Similarly, trying to add both with and with just gives you pairs of complex numbers, again not very interesting. This is all basic algebra and applications of the Chinese remainder theorem. --Gro-Tsen 10:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can only agree that many articles need improvement (but I am glad that you did respond). If you repost your last message in talk:split-complex number I'd be glad to respond (it's getting very specific now). Or, to save you time, I'd also be glad to cite your last post there ... This will be funny, I'm looking forward for the reactions.
As for the hypernumbers page, I do thank anyone for the attention, and I'm glad to "let go" and answer question on the talk page, from what I can answer. I'm a physicist, with interest on physics on numbers that are not typically used, and I noticed gaps, missing information, and missing links (isomorphisms) in Wikipedia. So I've added some as good as I can, though I'm not native to the field (mathematics). Any review or improvement is, as always, welcome. Thanks again, Jens Koeplinger 12:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to repost my comment elsewhere if you think it wise. Personally I won't follow the "split-complex numbers" page because I don't think it's interesting in any way (but it's not really crackpot stuff either: it's just entirely boring) and I don't have time to improve it. I just find it laughable if it turns out that nobody noticed that these "split-complex numbers" are just isomorphic to pairs of real numbers (something which should be obvious from the start to anyone with a minimal background in algebra, e.g., having read Lang's book). Btw, "tessarines" / "bicomplex numbers" are similarly isomorphic to pairs of complex numbers. Any (commutative and associative) étale algebra over the real numbers is a product of copies of the real numbers and the complex numbers, anyway. --Gro-Tsen 12:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this Kevin Carmody's website, the main reference of the hypernumbers page, and I'd like to point out that he's an unmitigated crackpot. Even if this topic were at all standard, we probably shouldn't be using his website as a reference. I will say that it can be very difficult to tell crackpot math from real math, especially if the crackpot in question studied mathematics in earnest before losing their grip, and especially they attract followers. I think this is the situation we have going here. It just has that certain feel - think of John Nash in "A Beautiful Mind" with the newspaper and magazine clippings. Originalbigj 16:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk:hypernumber for the list of sources from which I directly drew from, and the reasoning behind it. Thanks, Jens Koeplinger 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that "epsilon number" already has an established meaning. An epsilon number is an ordinal such that . JRSpriggs 02:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of several meanings of ε, ranging from conic sections to calculus. If Carmody and Musès have come up with another one, so be it. Nor are they entirely original; the use of ε for a non-trivial unit is fairly common in the study of rings - outshone, I think, only by ω. Septentrionalis 13:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship requested

I have requested adminship, largely to deal with the backlogs of move and discussion pages. Since Oleg endorses, I think I can mention it here. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pmanderson. Septentrionalis 20:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the main math admin lobby or what? :) Good luck! Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ovoids in polar spaces

Hello,

as you can see I am on the list of participants of the Math Project. I'm still not experienced in creating my own articles.

Any quick look at Ovoid (polar space) would be appreciated, also because of the fact that English is not my native language (I do my best though).

And one fundamental question : what to do with these ovoids, they are often only treated in the case of finite polar spaces, while in fact there isn't exactly anything wrong with the definition for infinite polar spaces.

Thanks a lot,

Evilbu 22:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's lacking most are the references. --LambiamTalk 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably say the same about polar space though at least there's a wiki-link to Tits there. Lunch 02:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get the message. There should be references. I am willing to accept any suggestion. The problem is that incidence geometry is not well represented on the net, most of the sources would be (online) courses from my own university. It would help me a great deal if I could know which users are into geometry as well. Evilbu 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use Google scholar as a starting point, and the library resources of your university to find good references, usually either a textbook, or the original articles introducing the concepts. Another acceptable source is the Encyclopaedia of Mathematics. Make sure the article agrees with the reference. --LambiamTalk 18:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our university does have a library... But on a side note : the first professor's article on that Google scholar link, is my own professor, who taught me the definition of polar space... Evilbu 19:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying a reference

An anonymous contributor has edited A. Cohn's irreducibility criterion to claim that the criterion has been proved to hold for the case n=2, whereas the relevant PlanetMath page says that this is a conjecture. The contributor provided the following link to a dvi file as a reference. I cannot read the dvi file, but I think it contains an article by number theorist Ram Murty published in Amer. Math. Monthly, Vol. 109 (2002), no. 5, 452-458. Perhaps someone with a dvi reader, or with access to the journal itself, can verify that this paper does indeed provide a proof for the case n=2 ? Gandalf61 10:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It gives a new proof for the n>2 case, then a long discussion and another lemma claimed to give the n=2 case as well. JPD (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JPD - thank you for the prompt response. Gandalf61 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems the Planet Math page is very outdated, giving as the only reference Polya and Szego vol 2, which is actually a very old book: the 1998 version is just a reprint of the 1976 English edition which was translated and revised by someone other than the original authors. Furthermore the 1976 German edition (according to Math Reviews reviewer) differs very little from the original 1925 edition. In any case, the Murty paper mentioned above gives as the first reference a 1981 paper which proves Cohn's theorem for any base (Brillhart, John; Filaseta, Michael; Odlyzko, Andrew On an irreducibility theorem of A. Cohn. Canad. J. Math. 33 (1981), no. 5, 1055--1059.) The review for it on MathSciNet notes that the original Cohn theorem was mentioned in Polya and Szego. So it seems this conjecture has been known to be closed for quite a while. --C S (Talk) 02:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the article A. Cohn's irreducibility criterion to reflect Brillhart et al's priority for the n=2 case. In a future edit I hope to change the letters used for certain subscripts to agree with the Ram Murty paper, because using 'n' it is easy to confuse the base used with the degree of the polynomial. The other improvement that might be suggested is to change the title to 'Cohn's Irreducibility Criterion', because Wikipedia's search function is too feeble to return this article in the first screen when you type in 'A. Cohn'. EdJohnston 22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antiderivative

I wonder if there are any comments on this edit (please write them at talk:derivative). Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to say write comments at Talk:Antiderivative? I don't see much need for discussion; the matter was already considered and decided long ago, at the top of the talk page. Are you suggesting it should be reconsidered? (Follow-ups to talk.) --KSmrqT 03:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics needed

Please help with adding the various mathematical analyses of the game Fetch (game) to the article. (See the references and further reading given in the article.) Uncle G 10:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The process by which a dog tries to catch a ball may be similar to the way that a fielder in baseball tries to catch a ball which has been hit in his general direction. I know that that has been analyzed mathematically, but I do not remember the details. JRSpriggs 05:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Prize more prestigious than Wolf Prize in Mathematics?

That is what one anon has insisted, but I believe this is unsubstantiated and actually OR. See Talk:Wolf_Prize for my lengthy comment with diffs. Perhaps a personal remark here is in order. When the anon replaced the mention of the Wolf in the intro to Serre's article (saying Wolf is not more prestigious than Abel), I was willing to let it go as I thought at least that the Abel would be more familiar to the lay reader (due to the extensive media coverage); however, a later edit revealed that this person regards the Abel as more prestigious than the Wolf and that would be appear the basis for the first edit. I would appreciate if people could take a look, particularly mathematicians who have been been in the mathematical community for a longer time than me who can gauge this issue with their more extensive experience. I think this is kind of an interesting math cultural issue. --C S (Talk) 11:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take the Wolf Prize to be, de facto, the top lifetime achievement award. That being said, we can't possibly talk about prestige in the abstract (would have to be via quotes). I suggest just removing all loose talk. Charles Matthews 12:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Prestige is in the eye of the beholder. Speaking of which, please report all rumors on the talk page of Grigori Perelman! ---CH 07:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's also how I would rank them, but looking at the winners they seem to be the best of the best for both, so now I wonder, what would actually make one more prestigious than the other? For the Fields Medal, could it play a role that it is only awarded once every four years? And of course you can't be an old geezer, so it does not honour a lifetime of servitude service to mathematics, but specific memorable achievements.

Problem editor

All mathematics editors should be alert to the ongoing behavior of Bo Jacoby (talk). In article after article Bo has tried to use invented (original research) notation. Then Bo lures others into endless discussions on the talk pages, where a host of editors again and again waste their time saying the same thing: "Don't do it." Examples include

A related wrong-headed persistence has been seen at Talk:Wilkinson's polynomial. I do not know the cause nor the intent of this behavior, but we need to find some effective way to deal with it. Patient responses on article talk pages have not been effective. Please be vigilant to catch more abuses, and please do not let Bo turn article talk pages into his own chat room. --KSmrqT 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to that talk:polynomial and talk:formal power series. I believe we are dealing with a person without formal math education, and it takes a long time (and many editors sometimes) to convince him that he is wrong. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I would also add Talk:Lebesgue integration. That explains a lot.--CSTAR 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Talk:Binomial transform. Bo's behaviour, while annoying and disruptive, is minor in comparison to some of the mono-maniacal and outrageous behaviour I've seen recently seen (e.g. my talk page, ughhh). linas 03:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Lamest where it applies. Charles Matthews 21:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone check out inferential statistics? This is an article that seems to have been largely written by Bo. Statistics is not my field, but some of the technical terms defined in the article, like "deduction distribution function" and "induction distribution function", don't seem to appear anywhere else on the web (at least, not with the same meaning). A closer look by a statistician might be warranted. Another article largely written by him, in which he cites his own publications, is Durand-Kerner method. Again, I have not checked this and make no claim as to whether it is good or bad, but it might be worth a closer look given Bo's past behavior. —Steven G. Johnson 15:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Durand-Kerner is ok, he earlier claimed to be the inventor of the method, since he did not find related information, but changed or allowed to change to the more usual name. The method is, as it seems, not widely known, but (personal communication by prof. Yakoubsohn at Toulose) common knowledge in the root finding community.--LutzL 17:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's still the vanity link/redirect at Jacoby's method. Lunch 20:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the article to which this redirect points, Durand-Kerner method, there are two references to Bo Jacoby added by Bo Jacoby. Being relatively new to all of this, I'm not sure if this counts as WP:NOR or not. VectorPosse 22:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:Fourier transform. —Steven G. Johnson 16:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of QED

Should QED be:

  1. a page about the phrase quod erat demonstrandum, with a dablink to QED (disambiguation),
  2. a page about quantum electrodynamics, with a dablink to QED (disambiguation), or
  3. a disambiguation page, with links to both the above and to lesser uses.

My opinion is clearly (3), but come share yours at talk:QED (disambiguation). --Trovatore 20:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown via your question that the term is ambiguous; therefore, it should be a disambiguation page. QED Ryan Reich 20:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is taking place at talk:QED (disambiguation), not here; this is just a notice. --Trovatore 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least admit that it was good for a chuckle. Ryan Reich 20:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could have that on your tombstone. Charles Matthews 21:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take mushroom, black olive, and anchovies. --Trovatore 22:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've had pizza that chewed like marble myself...Septentrionalis 01:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose anchovies. --C S (Talk) 04:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the ethics of terminology, QED as quod erat demonstrandum has priority by several thousand years over all the New QEDs On The Block. Jon Awbrey 05:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, my feeling is that, if we were to take the intrinsic importance of the subject into account, it would have to swing massively the other direction: quantum electrodynamics is one of the most fundamental attempts to describe nature yet devised by the mind of man, whereas quod erat demonstrandum is just a phrase, a piece of historio-linguistic trivia. (Obviously this is quite distinct from any consideration of the importance of the idea of proof, or even of individual proofs at the end of which Q.E.D. has appeared; those are separate discussions altogether, and the Q.E.D. article isn't about them.) Perhaps more to the point, just from a practical point of view, it's an observed fact that lots of people link to QED from physics articles, which has bad consequences if it's a redirect to the Latin phrase.
    • Still, if you want to "vote", this isn't the place to do it; I've given a pointer above to the actual debate. --Trovatore 05:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Trovatore, Quantum Electrodynamics is a temporary theory. It is a set of rules, and the theory is not entirely well-defined mathematically. On the other hand proofs are very important, not only in mathematics, but also in theoretical physics.Hillgentleman 03:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Luckily, there was no need to judge the relative importance of quantum electrodynamics and proof. Proof is an extremely important topic; quod erat demonstrandum is not. --Trovatore 03:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JA: The just notable difference tends to be relative and shifty from year to year. That's why we have rules like prior use. Of course, this is WP, and the rule is to find the "most illiterate use" and go with that, so why am I not already sleeping, he asks himself. Jon Awbrey 05:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ICM Madrid

Starts 22 August, I believe. It would be good if we geared up for the Fields Medal awards. By which I mean: get ready with a story to offer the Main Page here; have articles ready on Terence Tao and Grigori Perelman who are the hot tips; be prepared to do something quick and dirty for anyone else on the list. Compared to 2002, the world's press are likely to turn to enWP for enlightenment, as soon as the news hits the wires. Charles Matthews 21:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, so who else is on the list? --C S (Talk) 05:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, as part of that, anyone ready with good pictures for Kakeya problem page? Charles Matthews 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: plenty of excitement as Perelman was a no-show; need work on Andrei Okounkov (I've just mailed Princeton to see if they have a photo), Wendelin Werner. Matter arising from the latter: self-avoiding random walk is surely worth an article. Charles Matthews 12:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Image search turns up photos for everyone, rights status unknown. --KSmrqT 12:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps self-avoiding random walk could start as a section of Random walk before being spun off on its own. Michael Kinyon 15:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a raw definition somewhere there, true. Quick-and-dirty is to redirect and forget ... given a Fields has been awarded, there might be rather more to it. Also, an article on Charles Loewner would be good (there is a MacTutor article); I just had time to start some of Werner's lecture notes which do hark back to Loewner's work of the 1920s. Charles Matthews 16:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity Mathematics School open

I cordially invite the partisipants of this project to the newly founded wikiversity school of Mathematics. We are still working out the policies, but any help is appreciated. --Rayc 23:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace

Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A novice editor has created an article for the Jacobi eigenvalue algorithm; a few fixes there could be a big help as well. --KSmrqT 12:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like there is a need for some people to do some copyedditing on the article. These been a lot of suggestions on fixes to the article needed to get it to FA status but no one is acting on them. Volunteers welcome! --Salix alba (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pi#Move Pi to π, the official discussion!

This move idea has come up again. Please discuss. (I made the point that software limitations mean that the actual move, if this passes, will be to Π.) Septentrionalis 01:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala school?

I copied this message from Portal talk:Mathematics. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you guys think about the Kerala School article and the possible transmission of mathematics from Kerala to Europe? Should the theory get a mention on our articles about calculus, newton, wallis etc? Frankly, I'm a bit alarmed about the points brought up here. Borisblue 07:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to post a message on Madhava, and saw this... Actually, I remember reading somewhere that several conferences have been convened worldwide to discuss the possible transmission. But none of them, AFAIK, have been able to come to a conclusion. However, the theory has never been discounted, because the people who back it, have a very strong point. IMO, (and this is not because I'm from Kerala), this should be mentioned as a theory that is prevalent. All my attempts at introducing it in some articles failed, (primarily because I happen to be from Kerala). It certainly would be nice if someone would be willing to take initiative in this regard (after a discussion, of course).-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC will be nice. However, I have a lot of difficulty finding academic papers that discuss and critique this issue (can't find any record of conferences either?), I think because this theory is so new. Hence, it will be difficult to satisfy verifiability in a lot of the claims, at least untill a few more historians come up with some peer-reviewed papers. Science and math issues require very reputable sources. Borisblue 04:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode article names

User:CyberSkull moved T1 space to T₁ space, that's on the heels of a move of Mu operator to Μ operator. I believe that these are cheap Unicode tricks and not a solution to the fact that Wikipedia can't represent faithfully some mathematical notation.

T1 space should ideally be "T1 space". Since that's impossible, I think T1 space is a better name than the T₁ space gimmick. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Unicode tricks can solve all our problems along these lines, I would agree that we would be better sticking with things like T1 space. I think it would be better to be consistent and avoid gimmicks - and hope that some future version of the software will give a more sensible solution. Madmath789 21:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to Oleg for fixing Mu operator and Mu-recursive function which had been moved inappropriately by User:CyberSkull. I agree that titles of articles and categories should not contain characters other than printable ascii characters. It is hard enough dealing with unusual characters in the text of an article. Having such characters in a title is much worse. One might look in the wrong place in the category listing (as I did for the two I mentioned above). Or one might fail to find them with a search or even be able to enter the correct title into the search box. Or the title might not display correctly depending on one's fonts. JRSpriggs 08:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fields template

If Grigori Perelman has declined his Fields Medal, how should Template:Fields medalists read? Charles Matthews 15:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Perelman (declined)"? Yes, I realize that if he has declined, then technically he is not a medalist, but there should be some indication that the award was offered to him. Michael Kinyon 15:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the New York Times, Sir John M. Ball, president of the International Mathematical Union, said, "He has a say whether he accepts it, but we have awarded it." So maybe Perelman is technically a medalist. Having said that, I believe that Michael's suggestion is adequate. VectorPosse 20:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now of some urgency, since Template:In the news has the Fields as leading item. Charles Matthews 16:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the fact the Perelman declined will be discovered at his article, perhaps it's enough to do nothing special. Or at least postpone a more clever solution. The exact details still seem mysterious, so letting the article explain seems wise. If "(declined)" is included, be sure to use   between it and his name to prevent an awkward break in the future. (Actually, the current breaks are none too appealing.) --KSmrqT 18:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that he has indeed specifically declined to accept the Fields Medal. I agree with "Perelman (declined)" in the template. ---CH 23:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a New Yorker article on Perelman that got slashdotted: rather interesting read, gives insight into why the prize was declined. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060828fa_fact2
BTW: Manifold Destiny (article) --Pjacobi 20:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grigori Perelman

I've extensively rewritten this twice in the past week to incorporate latest news and clean up "edit creep" (well intentioned edits by inexperience writers--- or thoughtless ones--- which disrupt the flow of ideas, exhibit poor diction, and generally tend to eventually render an article unreadable.) There has been some apparent trolling by editors who want to discuss the Israeli-Palestine conflict, so watch out. Sheesh! ---CH 23:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madhava of Sangamagrama

Hello! This article is about Madhava, a mathematician who lived during the middle ages. Despite being one of the greatest mathematicians (he is, in fact considered as the founder of mathematical analysis), most of his work has been discredited. The talk page of the article has a large number of unanswered questions. It would be nice if someone well versed in mathematics take a look at them. I am not submitting the article for collaboration, because it fails the nomination criteria. However, it would be wonderful if people would come forward to cleanup all the confusion and chaos on this article. Thanks! -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK14:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles listed at Articles for deletion

The 'bot hasn't picked this one up, it appears. Uncle G 11:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request from Non-math Person

I feel certain that this comes up a lot, but as a relatively well-educated and well-read individual who has only a general interest in mathematics, I am consistently stumped by even the simplest of mathematics entries on wikipedia. Granted, some math issues, conjectures, and theories are plain ol' difficult, but it seems like Mathematics entries on wikipedia are by far the least accessible entries (for the average reader who comes to an encyclopedia for general information). The Clay Institute's descriptions of the Millennium Prize problems [1], for example, do a much better job of describing and analogizing the problems for us lay-folk. With so much to work on, this may not be a valid top priority for the Project, but as an outsider I would greatly appreciate if it became a focus. Thanks! aww 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a known issue. For us here, I suppose, the point of view might be that the mathematics is only about 1% of enWP; but its place in sustaining the reputation and credibility of the project is much greater than that would suggest. We have certainly emphasised getting 'professional' mathematics here. An analogy would be with medicine: no one would want the clinical medicine articles to be accessible only to doctors, but on the other hand if a doctor can say "that's just wrong", that is also not good.
Let's look at the Clay description of one of the problems in detail.
Mathematicians have always been fascinated by the problem of describing all solutions in whole numbers x,y,z to algebraic equations like
x2 + y2 = z2
Not true. In the eighteenth century this kind of number theory, namely Diophantine equations, was consider a backwater. That attitude prevailed for a long time.
Euclid gave the complete solution for that equation, but for more complicated equations this becomes extremely difficult.
See Pythagorean triples.
Indeed, in 1970 Yu. V. Matiyasevich showed that Hilbert's tenth problem is unsolvable, i.e., there is no general method for determining when such equations have a solution in whole numbers.
True.
But in special cases one can hope to say something. When the solutions are the points of an abelian variety, the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture asserts that the size of the group of rational points is related to the behavior of an associated zeta function ζ(s) near the point s=1.
Actually, writing 'abelian variety' rather than elliptic curve is reprehensible here: far too general. If I tried to write down the equations defining an abelian variety, you wouldn't thank me. It would be much better to say cubic curve, in fact. This slurs over the fact that if such a curve has a singular point, we don't call it an 'elliptic curve'; but that case is already done by the Euclid method, anyway.
In particular this amazing conjecture asserts that if ζ(1) is equal to 0, then there are an infinite number of rational points (solutions), and conversely, if ζ(1) is not equal to 0, then there is only a finite number of such points.
We don't use words like 'amazing', naturally. This is OK, and could usefully go in an article here. (Then for experts we have to remark something on the analytic continuation question, supporting the idea that the zeta function is even defined at the actual point.)
Right then, this was an exercise. I would criticise the exposition for not using the proper term (Diophantine equations). Anyone browsing our Category:Diophantine equations should at least be able to pick up what the subject is about.
Charles Matthews 19:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So this Clay write-up was perhaps good in explaining things to the interested layperson, and lousy for professional mathematicians. We have many articles that are lousy in explaining things to the interested layperson, and perhaps good for professionals. We also have some articles that are lousy for both. Why be so defensive about it? Can't we just admit that we'd like to have more articles that do a good job for both? Unfortunately, we don't have that many editors who combine the required background with the necessary writing skills and also have unlimited time to devote to the project. --LambiamTalk 01:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the middle way was found a long time ago. Articles should have a good and easy to read introduction. Moving down an article, things will become more complex, and for good reason.
I don't think Charles was trying to be defensive (he's rather good at writing expositionary articles, without formulas pile-ons :) We have some good articles, and some bad articles. And math articles could be harder to read than say biology articles because we use much more symbolism and abstract concepts, and that for good reason. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was certainly enjoying myself looking at other expositions for change, rather than patching up our own. And I hope I made a point about what the mathematics articles here are good for, at least: we do have a very thorough coverage (23 Hilbert problems you can look up here, not just one). There are plenty of popular mathematical books around that will give you a 'feel' for Fermat's Last Theorem, Riemann Hypothesis, Monster group. What you can find here is one step up from that: the level was defined as undergraduate student, back a couple of years ago. Anyway, let's do it again, for the Hodge conjecture (defined as On a complex algebraic variety, every homology class that could reasonably contain a subvariety does contain a subvariety here). The Clay gves us this:
In the twentieth century mathematicians discovered powerful ways to investigate the shapes of complicated objects. The basic idea is to ask to what extent we can approximate the shape of a given object by gluing together simple geometric building blocks of increasing dimension. This technique turned out to be so useful that it got generalized in many different ways, eventually leading to powerful tools that enabled mathematicians to make great progress in cataloging the variety of objects they encountered in their investigations. Unfortunately, the geometric origins of the procedure became obscured in this generalization. In some sense it was necessary to add pieces that did not have any geometric interpretation. The Hodge conjecture asserts that for particularly nice types of spaces called projective algebraic varieties, the pieces called Hodge cycles are actually (rational linear) combinations of geometric pieces called algebraic cycles.
So they try not even to mention the words manifold and topology. Pieces that did not have any geometric interpretation. Yes and no: de Rham cohomology is fairly geometric. The statement leaves out the technical points that the varieties are over the complex numbers (OK, that's the default), and are non-singular (which one can't really get away with).
Someone writing in the style of the first three sentences here would get them edited to more precision of statement pretty fast. The idea buried in the fourth unfortunately we do not cover well (homology classes represented by actual subspaces - I think there are results by major topologists not here). Saying 'nice' is a lapse into the way mathematicians communicate to each other.
We are really stuck with a world where on Monday we may be having to try to write up what Andrei Okounkov did to deserve a Fields Medal (breaking news) and the next day supposedly trying to find new paraphrases for things like algebraic variety or manifold. I'd like to point out that we also get criticism from the other direction (see for example Talk:Abelian variety for an extreme example).
Charles Matthews 10:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly see how that would be. It's the problems of wikipedia combined with a less accessible sets of subjects. I have to say, it dawned on my from your examples that the best way to explain a complex problem to a lay person is with analogy and abstraction, which in certain mathematics articles could just as easily translate into "inaccurate" or "wrong." Nonetheless, I would encourage pushing some of the intros even farther, even if they include such vague statements as "while not exactly (thing), it is similar to (thing)." Then again, I'm a lawyer, and this is how we talk about everything, so there you go. Thanks for the good work, and I'll keep reading and trying to learn. aww 13:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To do a good job on a sophisticated mathematics article, an editor must have detailed technical knowledge, the ability to know what's essential versus peripheral, great empathy for the untrained reader (to see through their eyes), a solid command of the English language, exceptional skill in writing, and world-class patience and diplomatic skills.
A one-paragraph introduction may be the shortest part of the article, but is almost always the most difficult to write. The Millennium Prize Problems are singled out because they are connected to a great deal of interesting mathematics, and because they are very difficult to solve. How do you take a problem that the best mathematicians in the world do not yet understand adequately and present it in a few short, accurate, engaging sentences to the general public?
You may be surprised at the extraordinary stuggle behind a basic mathematics article, such as manifold.
Ironically, mathematics today is so broad and so deep that a specialist in one branch may know almost nothing about an advanced topic in another specialty. Therefore we appreciate a good introduction just for ourselves!
Finally, while some in the world are hungry to learn more mathematics and science, others are actively hostile, or indifferent. One consequence is that we continue to struggle to convince the WikiMedia developers to better support our notational needs. Another is that we see lazy outside editors take a quick glance at an article and slap a fixit tag on it, without even doing us the courtesy of leaving a note on the talk page to describe what they see as the problem. Or we see editors reword things they do not understand, which someone must then notice and fix.
And yet, we persist. We mathematicians have a love of beauty and pattern, which draws us in and sometimes leads us to want to share the joy. And to solve difficult problems, we have learned to persist in the face of constant frustration and defeat. Perhaps if it was easier to write a good Wikipedia article, we'd be less interested! ;-) --KSmrqT 21:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, we also have introduction to quantum mechanics and introduction to special relativity and why 11 dimensions because there is simply so much to say about these topics at the introductory level, that a single article cannot do justice to both the introductory and the technical aspects of the subject. linas 22:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Injustice

For years I have regarded it as a running joke that named theorems, if they are really important, are almost never named for the "right" person. In funnier, it often turns out that the "wrong" person actually cited the earlier contribution, but nobody listened (or cared)! One can often see that even if famous person F tries to credit obscure person O, the result still usually becomes known for F. Anyway, I invite you to contribute your own examples in List of misnamed theorems, but please be very careful since the syntax is easily munged. If you can't figure out how to do it from the examples in the current version, put your entry in the talk page (with a complete citation if at all possible) and I will move the information to the article. ---CH 05:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, isn't this a little bit OR-ish? Granted that lists in general are sometimes given a little rhythm on that point, still this seems especially close to the line, to me. --Trovatore 16:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the many items that cite secondary sources are okay? Melchoir 16:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just theorems. Farey numbers were first noted by Haros in 1802. Care to change the name to Misnamed topics in mathematics?
Its not just theorems and topics: Pell's equation was so named because Lord Brouncker solved it! - How about Misnamed equations? Madmath789 22:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about misnamed things? Fredrik Johansson 22:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...List of misnomers in mathematics? Melchoir 23:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little leery of the whole idea. The underlying premise seems to be that something is "misnamed" if named after someone other than the first person to come across it. That is not clear to me. Remember the "Columbus principle": It's not who discovers it first, but who discovers it last; that is, the person who makes the concept permanently available. Not everyone agrees with that idea, which is fine; it's not my purpose to promote it here. I'm just saying that a list that assumes the opposite, for its very existence, strikes me as POV. --Trovatore 17:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe there is a way of turning this into more of a history-of-mathematics type article? The few cases that I read about are just that: I read about them because someone else thought it was interesting enough to do some historical research and write about it. Once it is realized that some idea is improperly named, why would people continue to use the improper name? Habit .. laziness . ignorance .. lack of interest. I see no POV problem. FWIW, I recently did a little reading on the principle of least action, the correct attribution of which was littered with denouncemnts and accusations, mediated by councils, and even a kingly decree! At least we don't call it "sos-n-so's principle of least action", but I imagine there are more stories like this. linas 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hm? The POV problem is precisely the claim that such-and-such a name is "improper". --Trovatore 20:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that many times it is not clear cut who was the "first" to discover something. Usually the modern reformulation is quite different than the original, and then it becomes a long debate whether so-and-so really discovered such-and-such or only a nonimportant special case or whether a later person really added anything essential, etc. Some people go with the "attribute to anyone in the neighborhood" philosophy, e.g. "so-and-so essentially had the idea but didn't know the formalism of the later such-and-such theory" whereas some go with the "attribute to the first person to make that exact statement" philosophy. So there are other reasons besides laziness, ignorance, etc., that somebody may choose to use a particular terminology.

Depending on your particular philosophy, you could argue almost all theorems named after persons are "misnamed". So the list could get quite long and useless. I think, as pointed out by Trovatore, that there are inherent POV issues in this list idea, only some of which have been pointed out. An additional source of concern is that the most reliable sources, say by math historians, will not attempt to assign credit but merely describe what contributions were made. So there's an opportunity here for editors to fall into the OR trap by saying "So-and-so wrote in his book that earlier Bunyakovski did such-and-such. So the theorem is misnamed". --C S (Talk) 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with Trov and Chan here. Paul August ☎ 22:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A momentous question

OK, here's a poser for you all, and I'm sure you won't want to eat or sleep until it's settled. If you start a sentence with the phrase von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory, should the "v" be capitalized? I say yes, because you would capitalize it if you start a sentence with "von Neumann", and therefore the article does not need the {{lowercase}} template. Arthur thinks otherwise. Please focus your full intellectual powers on this question, as I know you wouldn't want to make a mistake here. --Trovatore 16:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To up the ante, I don't see anyone crying havoc over Von Neumann architecture, Von Neumann probe, Von Neumann algebra, Von Neumann conjecture, or Von Neumann regular ring. And I've always thought that template was silly anyway. Melchoir 16:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the confusion, the "abbreviation" vNBG (at least, as used in my parents' work on logic and set theory) clearly cannot be uppercased at the beginning of a sentence. I'm now uncertain whether the entire expression, if spelled out, should be lowercased at the beginning of a sentence. I don't have time to research it for another few days, although I made the assertion in the appropriate article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Melchior's comment. It appears that, about 48 hours ago, someone went through and removed the lowercase template from all those pages. That person agrees with Trovatore that von Neumann is capitalized at the beginning of a sentence; I do not know whether this is correct, but it is surely a matter of editorial style, not grammar. In some style guides it depends on the original language (Dutch, German, etc) that the von comes from. The style I am used to would never capitalize von Neumann, even at the beginning of a sentence, and so I think the lowercase template is appropriate. Wikipedia is free to have its own style; my guess is that it is already documented somewhere, although a quick glance at WP:NAME didn't show anything. CMummert 17:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah; I looked at the talk pages of those articles, but not their edit histories. I am not familiar with the usual treatment of "von Neumann" at the beginning of a sentence, so I'll back out of that particular issue. Melchoir 20:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(responding to Melchor -- edit conflict) Well, I don't think it's silly on the articles where it really belongs, such as e (mathematical constant). We don't want our students deciding that it's sometimes OK to write it E, say if it's the first letter in an equation. And I'm fine with it, also, at eBay or bell hooks, though I don't think it's as important in those cases. But it should really be expunged from all the articles that start with "de" or "von" or "bin" or "ter"; those article titles are, in my view, correctly uppercased. Anyway, this is getting a little non-mathematical; if you want to get in on the whole earthshaking discussion, please see template talk:lowercase#Inappropriate use of this template (even that discussion should maybe go better at the MoS discussion page). --Trovatore 17:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a conflating issue with e, though: in good writing one shouldn't be starting a sentence with it at all. Anyway, while it's a worthwhile goal to avoid misleading readers, usually the first, bolded usage of an article's title is where its correct usage is displayed-- and presumably, where the form will have a greater impact on the reader. In fact, if there's a conflict between the displayed title and the first usage, that alone draws the reader's attention, and that the actual usage is the one to imitate seems implicit. We don't have to beat the reader over the head with it. Maybe I should visit that talk page... Melchoir 20:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(replying to the original question) I would capitalize "von Neumann" if it appears at the start of a sentence. That's at least the rule in German, Dutch and French, and it seems strange that English would deviate from it (though of course spelling is not always logical). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John von Neumann was so well known that he was often simply called "John von". So clearly the solution is to go thru all articles whose names begin with "von Neumann" or "Von Neumann" and replace those with "John von". Since this should clearly be capitalized, the ambiguity would be avoided. ;-) JRSpriggs 08:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navigational templates

I know I'm not a regular to this WP, but I'd like to throw out a suggestion: If the table on Portal:Mathematics/MathematicsTopics could be broken up into templates (as well as one large template of all of them), the templates could be placed on the respective articles to the great improvement of mathematics articles. 24.126.199.129 20:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of folks here despise the use of navigation templates, and delete them summarily. For good reason. linas 22:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who don't see offhand what's wrong (or what's right) with navigational templates, could someone post a link to an earlier discussion where consensus was reached? The "good reason" linas cites are not evident to me. Michael Kinyon 00:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are long discussions that took place multiple times in the archives. Mostly, the problems were that the navboxes tended to get very large, chew up a lot of screen real-estate, and contain rather bizarre groupings of topics -- typically, obscure topics lumped in with major fields of study, thus giving undue weight to the obscure topic while effectively hiding the wealth of the major areas. Frequently, the navboxes would be skewed towards a college freshman's view of the world -- 23 ways of solving a differential equation and nothing else matters. If an article is well-written and properly linked, you don't need nav-boxes; you need an attention span that is longer than 15 seconds, which is something most of the editors here posses, but most proponents of nav boxes do not. Basically, you ain't gonna learn no math by surfing, and there's not point in encouraging surfing. linas 04:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I didn't realize that earlier efforts were bloated and skewed toward the elementary and obscure. Looking at the existing mathematics nav-boxes, I see what you mean. The nav-box for convex, regular 4D polytopes seems fine, but someone stuck E7½ in the exceptional Lie groups nav-box. That was obviously inappropriate. The problem is clear: since the nav-boxes can be edited by anyone, of course they would bloat. Michael Kinyon 13:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this discussion. I actually came here to propose such an idea! lol... I tend to like how the German wiki does it. For example, look at de:Gruppentheorie, "Group theory" (you may not speak German, but you can probably guess what most of the terms in the nav box mean.) It has three boxes, designating what field of math we are in, what is more general than a group, and what is more specific. It makes browsing around more enjoyable. Even if we dont have a sidebox, a box at the bottom of the articles could be nice. Am I redundant to some earlier conversation? - grubber 02:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tentively support an idea like de:Gruppentheorie. Personally I find the mathematics articles hard to navigate, and we do get ocasional comments from our readers who get lost engaging in a definition chase. Inline links present the reader with an unstructured web, whease a suitable nav box scheme would provide a more structured tree navigation scheme. Further the inline links can make navigation harder, you need to scan the text to find the appropriate links, these links may not always appear in standard places like the lead and see also sections making navigation even harder. A well thought through nav box system could make it easier for readers to find their way around the vast number of mathematics articles. --Salix alba (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Also: what is the consensus in WP Mathematics on infoboxes? Michael Kinyon 00:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. Seem pretty enough in those places where they make sense. linas 04:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Announce: Mathematics subject classification template

I created Template:MSC for use on category pages, for those who are into classifying things. I also did a brutal and summary redirect of Mathematics Subject Classification; specialists are encourages to write a blurb on those topics that don't have a blurb.

Speaking of templates, I'd like to remind everyone again about Template:Springer for links to articles in the Springer-Verlag online encyclopaedia of mathematics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linas (talk • contribs)

I undid the redirect as it doesn't make sense. The page on the AMS' Mathematics Subject Classification shouldn't redirect to a page that attempts to list and describe areas of mathematics (using the MSC as a "starting point"). The MSC is an interesting and encyclopedic subject in itself; its article should not only explain the classification scheme, but its differences (from the 2000 and 1991 versions), how it was created, who uses it, etc. --C S (Talk) 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well, its just was a nasty and brutal little article that threatens to try to duplicate the conetent of areas of mathematics, and I saw no point in encouraging duplication. linas 04:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of politics

I'm going to ask here for help from native speakers (German particularly needed) in translation my Candidate statement for the Board Elections starting next week.

Putting together two comments above (User:KSmrq on the need for mathematical software support, and my own on the credibility the mathematics coverage disproportionately brings), having a mathematician on the Board might seem a positive step, to some here anyway.

Charles Matthews 14:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please place a notice here to assist those (like me) who would like to participate in the voting when it begins. I expect Wikipedia mathematicians will be especially interested in learning about a candidate who is a known mathematics editor. --KSmrqT 20:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

meta:Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2006/En. But I spy a link at the top of this and most other pages. Charles Matthews 21:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've had some very useful translation assistance, and am working on Italian right now. Spanish, Polish, Russian? Voting opens shortly. Charles Matthews 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soap bubble

Soap bubble is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 17:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

Hi all, please use these wherever possible. In particular, when citing an on-line article, please note that very few Wikipedia readers have an academic appointment and are using their office computer to access a journal's website, whereas anyone can download an arXiv eprint for free, so

  1. in the case of published papers which are on-line, please use a link to the arXiv abstract page (not everyone prefers to download a pdf!; postscript is much faster for those with a postscript printer!) rather than a link to the journal website,
  2. in the case of eprints, please use the arXiv citation template.

Here is the tutorial (created for the defuct WikiProject GTR, hence the gtr-related examples):

  • Book:

*{{cite book | author=Misner, Charles; Thorne, Kip S.; and Wheeler, John Archibald | title=Gravitation | location=San Francisco | publisher= W. H. Freeman | year=1973 | id=ISBN 0-7167-0344-0}}

  • Article in a research journal:

*{{cite journal | author=Kerr, R. P. | title=Gravitational field of a spinning mass as an example of algebraically special metrics | journal=Phys. Rev. Lett. | year=1963 | volume=11 | pages=237}}

  • Article in a research journal which was previously an arXiv eprint (check the arXiv abstract page to see if any publication details are noted):

*{{cite journal | author=Bicak, Jiri | title=Selected exact solutions of Einstein's field equations: their role in general relativity and astrophysics | journal=Lect. Notes Phys. | year=2000 | volume=540 | pages=1-126}} [http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0004016 gr-qc/0004016 eprint version]

  • arXiv eprint (not yet published):

*{{cite arXiv | author=Roberts, M. D. | title=Spacetime Exterior to a Star: Against Asymptotic Flatness | year = 1998 | version=May 16, 2002 | eprint=qr-qc/9811093}}

  • Article in a book:

*{{cite conference | author=Ehlers, Jürgen; & Kundt, Wolfgang | title=Exact solutions of the gravitational field equations | booktitle=Gravitation: an Introduction to Current Research | year=1962 | pages=49–101}} See ''section 2-5.''

  • Biography in the MacTutor archive:

{{MacTutor Biography |id=Friedmann|title=Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Friedmann}}

  • Article at the Living Reviews website:

*{{cite web | author=Gönner, Hubert F. M. | title=On the History of Unified Field Theories | work=Living Reviews in Relativity | url=http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2004-2 | accessdate=2005-08-10 }}

These have the following effects:

Maybe some kind project member can move this tutorial to the appropriate project page? And what about a page called something like "introduction for project newbies" which helps newcomers to editing math-related articles find valuable resources like List of mathematical topics (I like the old name better) and this tutorial? TIA! ---CH 19:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five points:
  1. These templates are more flexible than shown; more info is available at WP:CITET.
  2. When giving page ranges, please use an en dash (–) rather than a hypen-minus: "49–101", not "49-101".
  3. When giving ISBN data, please be forward-looking and convert to ISBN-13 (with online converter): "ISBN 978-0-7167-0344-0", not "ISBN 0-7167-0344-0". (And, please, do provide a valid ISBN.)
  4. When citing a journal, please provide ISSN data using the {{ISSN}} template: ISSN 0031-9007.
  5. Many online journal publications have a doi link; please use it if available.
A great deal of work has gone into writing these elaborate templates, and for good reason. They can really help the citation process. --KSmrqT 23:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing these to my attention. Why should I use them "wherever possible"? What is the "good reason"? Thanks. -- Dominus 10:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Official Wikipedia policy has not yet determined a standard set of templates, nor dictated their use. A journal or print encyclopedia or other formal publication does have standards. For readers, consistency makes references easier to search and easier to understand. For editors, use of templates makes a consistent preferred style easier to achieve.
Fill in the blanks, and the rest happens automatically. Should the author be listed "John Doe" or "Doe, John"? What gets italicized, quoted, bolded? What punctuation goes where? Where does the date go? All these questions and more are avoided, because the template knows what to do. Experienced authors of technical material have long relied on BibTeX databases and automatic formatting. We do not have a Wikipedia-wide database, but we can at least take advantage of templates.
Consider a novice editor who would like to cite Coxeter's classic Introduction to Geometry. Here's the template:
{{cite book | last = Coxeter | first = H. S. M. | authorlink = Harold Scott MacDonald Coxeter | title = Introduction to Geometry | edition = 2/e | publisher = Wiley | date = 1989 | pages = 366–368 | id = ISBN 978-0-471-50458-0 }}
and here's the result:
Coxeter, H. S. M. (1989). Introduction to Geometry (2/e ed.). Wiley. pp. 366–368. ISBN 978-0-471-50458-0.
A novice might not italicize the title, without the prompting of a template might not include an ISBN, and so on. Journal citations are a still greater challenge. Yet merely populating the slots of a template:
{{cite journal | last = Lawvere | first = F. William | authorlink = William Lawvere | title = Taking categories seriously | journal = Revista Colombiana de Matemáticas | volume = XX | pages = 147–178 | publisher = Sociedad Colombiana de Matemáticas – Universidad Nacional de Colombia (Bogotá) | date = 1986 | url = http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/reprints/articles/8/tr8.dvi | format = [[DVI (file format)|]] | ISSN = 0034-7426}}
produces this lovely citation:
Lawvere, F. William (1986). "Taking categories seriously" (DVI). Revista Colombiana de Matemáticas. XX. Sociedad Colombiana de Matemáticas – Universidad Nacional de Colombia (Bogotá): 147–178. ISSN 0034-7426.
Finally, use of such templates across Wikipedia makes a global change in convention, perhaps for another medium (or a non-English wikipedia), a minor change to implement. For example, we could switch to omitting quotation marks, or to using the typographically preferred curly quotation marks. --KSmrqT 21:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have the recommendations, examples and points to remember in this section been posted somewhere more permanent and publicly visible?  — merge 13:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The math-specific template examples could be put in a subpage, which could be added to the list of math Project Pages at WP:WPM. EdJohnston 02:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But wait! The WikiProject Mathematics page says there is already a math-specific manual of style: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics) . How about putting the new template advice in there? For extra visibility, also add the manual of style to the list of math Project Subpages? EdJohnston
One question re arXiv version versus versions published in journals. I would suspect that these will not be exactly the same as the journal version is likely to have gone through a review process before publication. Whats the best way to handle this? --Salix alba (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_16