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: /Conventions /Graphics /PlanetMath Exchange /Proofs /Typography /Wikipedia 1.0 Mathematics Portal MoS Mathematics Reference desk (mathematics) (Please ask general questions of interest here).

Please add new topics at the bottom of the page and sign your posts.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used Template:Wikipedia ad exists

WikiProject Mathematics archives () Earlier years Motivation · Nov 2002–Dec 2003 · Jan–Aug 2004 · Sep–Dec 2004 2005: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2006: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2007: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2008: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 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 2016: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2017: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2018: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2019: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2020: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2021: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2022: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2023: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2024: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Edit this box

It has become clear that there are a number of rather fervent mathematics-focused editors who have not actually bothered to read Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and who think that they get to determine whether or not to apply post-nominals in the lead of an article (and who are feverishly deleting these honours). These editors appear to be individuals who come from non-Commonwealth countries (e.g., the United States) who have no knowledge of how post-nominal letters are applied for various honours systems or royal societies. For the record, Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that post-nominals (e.g., OC FRSC) should be included in the lead of an article after the subject's name. See: MOS:POSTNOM Bueller 007 (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, however you could have posted that info already 2 weeks ago rather resorting to an edit war. Also please note the "... with which the subject has been closely associated"-bit in that guideline, which suggests for the Erdös case and probably most foreign members that the template in the lead is not appropriate and that the honor/membership should only be mentioned in the article's main body (and/or per category and infobox).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kmhkmh's statement and would go a little farther and say that the guideline clearly says that without a establishing a close association with the organization, the honour/membership should not appear in the lead. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree strongly with everything Kmhkmh and Bill have written here. Compare the MOS with this edit summary, which asserts that all Order of Canada members should have postnominals listed -- such a blanket position is in direct conflict with MOS. (I would be interested to see evidence of any consensus of any group of editors otherwise.) Any attempt to add these postnominals to the first sentence for Erdos or other similarly situated people would be inappropriate. --JBL (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, with Kmhkmh, Wcherowi, and JBL. As has been pointed out, MOS:POSTNOM says "Post-nominal letters ... should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated [empasis added]. Paul August ☎ 18:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MathXplore has been adding a bunch of links to references via the website arxiv-vanity.com, rather than direct links to the arXiv. I am having difficulty using the search to determine exactly how widely this site is linked from WP. Has this been discussed here before? Do people have thoughts about whether this is good/bad/not important? --JBL (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an attempt for SEO for the arxiv-vanity site. It would be better to link directly to arxiv than a repackager like arxiv-vanity. Amusingly, the tagline of the site is "We don't want to get all Jimmy Wales on you, but if you like Arxiv Vanity, we'd really appreciate it if you chucked us a few dollars." --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this search link. Feel free to purge them all in favour of proper {{cite arxiv|arxiv=}} / {{cite journal|arxiv=}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look and yes, links to sites like that (there are others I guess?) should be rejected, as far worse in numerous ways than direct links to arxiv.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned them up. No opinion on whether or not the arxiv citations were appropriate to start with, but most were published in journals/books/conference proceedings. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Headbomb and all. --JBL (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A next discussion about graphs categories takes place here. Your comments are welcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the one-way functions article, under the Candidates for one-way functions section there is a subsection for "Discrete exponential and logarithm" and "Elliptic curves". Now I don't know much at all about this area, but isn't it specifically the "elliptic curve discrete logarithm function" which is a candidate as a potential one-way function? If so should the elliptic curve subsection be merged with the discrete exponential and logarithm section? JustOneMore (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the "discrete exponential and logarithm" scheme applies to any finite groups. The most common cases are the multiplicative group of the integers modulo p, and the group of an elliptic curve, but other groups have been considered, such as the group of a hyperelliptic curve or the multiplicative group of a non-prime finite field. So, it would be better to move these two sections as subsections of a section on "exponential and logarithm on a finite abelian group". D.Lazard (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For corroborating information, see Discrete logarithm. Mgnbar (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have gone ahead and merged the sections. I'll try and add more info about the different groups after I've done more reading so I don't say something inaccurate :P JustOneMore (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are two interlinked discussions about the graphical representation of vertex figures for polyhedra, and especially uniform polyhedra, at Talk:Vertex figure#Illustrations and Talk:Archimedean solid#Images. These diagrams are used in a large number of infoboxes and tables in polyhedron articles and so it is important to build consensus on their appearance. More contributors to the discussion/s would be helpful, as they are getting bogged down. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) [updated 05:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)][reply]

Someone suggested that Bott–Samelson resolution and Bott–Samelson variety be merged back in July 2015. However no one made a case and it was closed last October, but then reopened by the original person who said they didn't make a case for merger because it was clear the two articles discuss the same thing. I don't really understand the merge process, could someone take a look at these and merge them if they should be merged? JustOneMore (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They may be fine, but the editor is the author of fringe self-published books and busy promoting himself here. That's not an issue for the project, but I'm not sure how competent he is. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Which article? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DOH! I'm an idiot. Stiffness matrix. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted (better be safe) then asked for references from published material. Limit-theorem (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion for a mathematics journal may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could anyone here help fix a few links to disambiguation pages?

Bolza surface has a link to Perturbation, Finsler manifold has a link to Minkowski norm and Simplicially enriched category has a link to Simplicial category.

I don't know whether there is a good target article for the links in question, or whether the link should be removed, as my level of Mathematics is not advanced enough to understand these topics. Thanks for your help. Iffy★Chat -- 12:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Bolza surface" and "Finsler manifold" now fixed, but "Simplicially enriched category" is not. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I "fixed" the last one by just removing that section; it was in pretty bad shape – bad English, questionable math, broken refs, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or are a lot of articles getting promoted to "vital"? I don't normally pay attention to that sort of meta classification, but SSTbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been promoting lots of articles that I wouldn't have thought should be considered "vital". For example, Bessel function is rated as "mid" importance by WikiProject Mathematics. Should it be only mid importance, but also vital? (Note: I have no strong opinions about any of this. I'm just noting that something doesn't quite jibe about it.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the SSTbot is promoting articles in Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Mathematics; for instance Bessel function is listed at Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Mathematics#Calculus_(32_articles). I, too, don't have much of an opinion on what is included, but that is probably the place to discuss. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum cohomology is a more egregious example than Bessel function (and I'm even a fan of the former). I don't understand the procedure by which Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Mathematics is populated. Mgnbar (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend mostly ignoring VA in general. I'm an occasional participant in level-3 discussions, but largely against my better judgment. I don't really see the point of the whole thing. It seems to be mostly a place to argue about why what's important to me is more important than what's important to you. --Trovatore (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Level 5 is a recent expansion to vital articles. Right now it's basically a WP:BOLD wildwest. Once it's got its critical mass of articles, I suspect there'll be an actual process in place. If anything egregious is missing, add it, if something completely silly is added, remove it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a bot for tagging these articles ran today. The current "quota" is 1200 articles (total) at level-5, including 300 at level-4 (biographies excluded from that count). My mental threshold is whether the topic would be discussed in a book-length mathematics encyclopedia. That's probably anything at "mid" priority or higher; Bessel function is One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles. and is probably important enough to be listed (no opinion on Quantum cohomology). power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anything of "mid" importance is "vital", then we have a serious terminology mismatch. (This is not an attack on you, though. :) Mgnbar (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a better terminology would be "vital indeed" for level 1, "vital" for level 2, "half-vital" for level 3, "not quite vital" for level 4, and "not vital at all" for level 5?   :-)   Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is not with the article Bessel function per se. But many of the other articles being promoted to vital in SSTbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) strike me as borderline at best. I realize a case could be made that articles like Methods of detecting exoplanets or Planetary differentiation, for example, are vital articles. But, on the other hand, something doesn't quite jibe about many of the articles I see getting promoted. Many are, for lack of a better word, borderline. Often they are only rated "mid" importance, for example, in their WikiProject designations. Something doesn't feel quite right if a WikiProject designates an article as "Mid" importance, but then a bot apparently upgrades it based on some list somewhere of "vital" articles. Why is there a discrepancy in the assessment? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi would someone be able to check the 'Newton–Cotes formulas page; Closed Newton-Cote formulae' section, specifically the (3rd and 4th) rows of formulae in the table...

1) The Simpson's 3/8 rule & Boole's rule do not appear to be consistent with the Trapezoid rule and Simpsons rule in that where they have used (b-a), I feel like they should have used (b-a)/n where n is the degree. This appears to be what they have done for trap/simpsons rule. The linked Boole's rule wiki page itself does have the initial coefficient as 2*h/45 and I believe h := (b-a)/4, meaning that using the style implemented on the Newton Coates page, the first coefficient should be 1/90 (i.e. (2/45)/4), and similarly the 3/8th simpsons rule should start with 1/8. As a reference I'm comparing to the Introduction to Numerical Analysis Springer book by Stoer and Bulirsch who provide a table for comparative purposes.

2) In the book I've just mentioned (page 126 for the table), the names of the interpolation schemes are different too. That reference names the degree 4 scheme as Milne's rule, whereas the wiki page seems to refer to places where it is called Boole's rule, and yet it uses Milne's rule for a different formula further down. I feel like (at least personally) I'm getting confused by all the names. Is there any way to clear it up?

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a0c:5bc0:40:107c:c479:58f9:bf8b:42cf (talk)

Courtesy link: Newton–Cotes_formulas#Closed_Newton–Cotes_formulas. --JBL (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the coefficients to match, but I'm not going to wade into the naming stuff. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the article: Georg Cantor's first set theory article

Here is the "Good Article" review page: Talk:Georg_Cantor's_first_set_theory_article/GA2

I created the page originally, but most of what's there now is the work of Robert Gray, a historian of mathematics who has published refereed scholarly articles on this topic.

Work is needed to respond to the recommendations on the review page in order for this article to be promoted. There is Robert Gray is on vacation and not aware of the current situation. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like the article, and I think it would be a shame if the nomination fails simply because some editor is having two weeks off. Michael, maybe you could ask the reviewer to extend the on hold for a bit longer than 7 days (which anyways are a somewhat arbitrary interval in my mind)? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still very seriously object to the name. My opinion is that articles about specific publications should be named after the publication — in this case On a Property of the Collection of All Real Algebraic Numbers.

There are several considerations that lead me to this conclusion. The most important one is that descriptions are the last choice for the titles of WP articles. For articles whose title is not a simple common noun, we should strain to use proper names and terms of art before natural-language descriptive phrases.

Secondarily but still importantly, article strikes me as a bad description for this seminal paper. TIME has articles. Wikipedia has articles. Research scientists publish papers. They may also publish articles, but the articles are less important than the papers. The articles tend to be surveys and reviews rather than original contributions. --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]