This page is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
To view an explanation to the answer, click on the [show] link to the right of the question.
Are Wikipedia's mathematics articles targeted at professional mathematicians?
No, we target our articles at an
appropriate audience. Usually this is an interested layman. However, this is not always possible. Some advanced topics require substantial mathematical background to understand. This is no different from other specialized fields such as law and medical science. If you believe that an article is too advanced, please leave a detailed comment on the article's talk page. If you understand the article and believe you can make it simpler, you are also welcome to improve it, in the framework of the
BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
Why is it so difficult to learn mathematics from Wikipedia articles?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,
not a textbook. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be pedagogic treatments of their topics. Readers who are interested in learning a subject should consult a textbook listed in the article's references. If the article does not have references, ask for some on the article's talk page or at
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Wikipedia's sister projects
Wikibooks which hosts textbooks, and
Wikiversity which hosts collaborative learning projects, may be additional resources to consider. See also:
Using Wikipedia for mathematics self-study
Why are Wikipedia mathematics articles so abstract?
Abstraction is a fundamental part of mathematics. Even the concept of a number is an abstraction. Comprehensive articles may be forced to use abstract language because that language is the only language available to give a correct and thorough description of their topic. Because of this, some parts of some articles may not be accessible to readers without a lot of mathematical background. If you believe that an article is overly abstract, then please leave a detailed comment on the talk page. If you can provide a more down-to-earth exposition, then you are welcome to add that to the article.
Why don't Wikipedia's mathematics articles define or link all of the terms they use?
Sometimes editors leave out definitions or links that they believe will distract the reader. If you believe that a mathematics article would be more clear with an additional definition or link, please add to the article. If you are not able to do so yourself, ask for assistance on the article's talk page.
Why don't many mathematics articles start with a definition?
We try to make mathematics articles as accessible to the largest likely audience as possible. In order to achieve this, often an intuitive explanation of something precedes a rigorous definition. The first few paragraphs of an article (called the
lead) are supposed to provide an accessible summary of the article appropriate to the target audience. Depending on the target audience, it may or may not be appropriate to include any formal details in the lead, and these are often put into a dedicated section of the article. If you believe that the article would benefit from having more formal details in the lead, please add them or discuss the matter on the article's talk page.
Why don't mathematics articles include lists of prerequisites?
A well-written article should establish its context well enough that it does not need a separate list of prerequisites. Furthermore, directly addressing the reader breaks Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. If you are unable to determine an article's context and prerequisites, please ask for help on the talk page.
Why are Wikipedia's mathematics articles so hard to read?
We strive to make our articles comprehensive, technically correct and easy to read. Sometimes it is difficult to achieve all three. If you have trouble understanding an article, please post a specific question on the article's talk page.
Why don't math pages rely more on helpful YouTube videos and media coverage of mathematical issues?
Mathematical content of YouTube videos is often unreliable (though some may be useful for pedagogical purposes rather than as references). Media reports are typically sensationalistic. This is why they are generally avoided.
Adjoint functor theorem, axiom of choice and anafunctor
I noticed that in the
Formal criteria for adjoint functors it says that "for simplicity ignoring the set-theoretic issues". Does this refer to
axiom of choice? Also, it seems that axiom of choice can be avoided by introducing a concept called anafunctor. It would be great if you could give me some advice or help with the draft (
Draft:Anafunctor).
SilverMatsu (
talk) 05:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it is not appropriate to ignore set theoretic issues in the statement of the theorem, because one of the conditions is essentially a set theoretic smallness condition already (it holds trivially in small categories for instance). MacLane states the theorem for (small-)complete categories with small hom sets. As far as I am aware, the proof uses choice. I don't know about anafunctors.
Tito Omburo (
talk) 10:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your advice. I think so, too. I think the theorem (SAFT) requires an axiom of choice. By the way, I'm thinking about whether to add
Category: Axiom of choice to a new draft. --
SilverMatsu (
talk) 17:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, Roberts (2011) says that, the etymology of anafunctor is an analogy of the biological terms
anaphase/
prophase. By the way, wiktionary has an
wikt:anafunctor, and wikipedia has a
profunctor. --
SilverMatsu (
talk) 15:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for sharing. That's an interesting remark.
Tito Omburo (
talk) 15:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
CLC has now three times changed the lead to a wrong definition involving complete directed graphs. Tournaments are not complete directed graphs. Complete directed graphs have edges in BOTH directions between each pair of vertices. Tournaments have an edge in exactly ONE direction between each pair of vertices. They are orientations of complete UNDIRECTED graphs. The undirected part is important. CLC should be reverted a third time, at least. I reverted twice but more eyes would help. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 16:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
David Eppstein Not to mention, the article has problems with citations, and more importantly, why does the article even put the theorem box in the first place? Will take care of these problems as much as I can. Let me know if someone has a different idea.
But seriously, for verifiability that tournaments are not the complete directed graphs, is it possible to expand the article, pointing it out alongside the supported sources, avoiding confusion or misinterpretation? Another problem here is the lead may already give some
WP:TECHNICAL, and it seems that CLC relates this terminology to the
round-robin tournament, from which I could not see anything about them instead of the list of see also section in the edit source.
Dedhert.Jr (
talk) 16:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi David—very sorry if my last edit was unclear, my intention wasn't to start an edit war. The last time I edited this, however, I described tournaments as "Oriented complete graphs", which I believe to be correct. (I don't see any difference between "oriented complete graphs" and "orientation of a complete graph"—the term "oriented complete graphs" means you start with a complete graph, then orient it.)
I believe most people would understand the term "complete oriented graph" refers to a tournament by slight abuse of terminology (the meaning is clear because an oriented graph can't be complete, so it must mean "as complete as possible"). My citation of the Mathematica wiki shows the wiki using the term "complete oriented graphs".
If you think "Orientation of a complete graph" would be more technically correct language, I think that's reasonable, but I'd prefer if you edited that term directly rather than reverting the edit as a whole. –Sincerely,
A Lime 17:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Re your "I described tournaments as "Oriented complete graphs", which I believe to be correct": maybe you can argue that this is correct in a pedantic
WP:TECHNICAL sense, if one understands the technical word "oriented" to mean adding directions to the edges of an undirected graph and "complete graph" to mean "complete undirected graph". However, it is also confusing, misleading, and totally inappropriate for the lead sentence of an article. When we talk about directed graphs, the natural interpretation of "complete graph" would be a complete directed graph, and casual readers are unlikely to notice the distinction between oriented and directed. These are not complete directed graphs. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
PS also please stop putting CS1-formatted citations into their own separate templates. This article uses CS2 (the citation template, not the cite templates) with short footnotes. When you put a citation into a template, rather than leaving it in the main text of an article, and then make a short footnote to it, it will always generate a harv linking error (look at the hidden categories). In addition, this violates
WP:CITEVAR. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
In this case David Eppstein's edit is certainly better since it is clearer. However, Closed Limelike Curves' proposed
definition as "oriented complete graph" seems to be identical, at least according to the lead sentence of
Orientation (graph theory). The sentence "A tournament is an orientation of a complete graph" also appears on that page. If this is actually in error, presumably because of wiki conventions on graph theory language, perhaps that page needs to be changed.
Gumshoe2 (
talk) 19:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Again, a definition that can be argued to be technically correct, if one uses the precise technical meanings of each term, can still be seriously misleading, if an un-expert reading of those terms would likely lead readers to a wrong understanding. We should aim for understanding, not merely technical correctness. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 20:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it's at a point where only some tidying remains, but I'm not sure when I'll have time to do that tidying.
XOR'easter (
talk) 01:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Request for an esteemed colleague from WikiProject Mathematics to please review and find a source for
Degenerate bilinear form, which has been tagged as "Unreferenced" since August 2008.
Cielquiparle (
talk) 09:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This seems sensible, doesn't it?
IntGrah (
talk) 23:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe, maybe not. The benefit of having two separate pages is that it makes it clear that the notions are different. This also allows other pages that reference these concepts to reference specifically the definition they need and thereby to minimize possible confusion. Note also that each of these two pages has "Not to be confused with ..." link at the top, and also shows the contrast with the other notion. But I can see that this could be debated.
PatrickR2 (
talk) 06:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I think they should not be merged, since they are different concepts. Note that the Springer EoM also has separate articles for the concepts.
Tito Omburo (
talk) 12:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. I was hoping that one concept would just be described in a sentence in another article, like
Weighted graph in
Graph, but I see otherwise now.
IntGrah (
talk) 13:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The two concepts are importantly rather different, especially in applications of measure theory (e.g., probability and dynamics).
Tito Omburo (
talk) 15:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)reply