WikiProject Mathematics archives ()
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by
Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The article titled
Scale of chords is incomprehensible without the link to the Google Books item on engineering drawing. Maybe I'll do something with it, unless someone else gets there first.
Michael Hardy (
talk) 04:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
I once introduced the terminology
semi-inner product in
inner product to mean a product satisfying all axioms of inner product except
This definition is used in John B. Conway, A course in functional analysis. It turned out to clash with the official Wiki-definition given in
semi-inner-product. I want to reintroduce it, under a different name, because I need to reference it elsewhere. For one thing, in semi-inner product spaces the
Cauchy–Schwarz inequality holds.
What would be a good common name for it?
YohanN7 (
talk) 13:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
- But I see there: "The definition presented here is different from that of the "semi-inner product" in standard functional analysis textbooks". If so, it should not be treated as "the official Wiki-definition".
Boris Tsirelson (
talk) 16:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Okay..., but that might add up to hard work to change.
YohanN7 (
talk) 11:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
Perhaps renaming
Semi-inner-product to Semi-inner-product space is the best option. It would even match
Lumer's original publication on the subject. Fortunately, there aren't many incoming links to the article.
YohanN7 (
talk) 09:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
The article titled
Secant plane is perhaps imperfect in its present state.
Michael Hardy (
talk) 17:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
Does anyone know what the alleged "counterintuitive" result is in the article titled
Light bulb model?
Michael Hardy (
talk) 18:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
- It seems to be a parody of a Wikipedia article. For example, the image captioned "Many Light Bulbs operated simultaneously" has many lightbulbs, only one of which is being operated.
Mgnbar (
talk) 23:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
There's an ongoing discussion at
Talk:±1-sequence about a proposed move from
±1-sequence to
sign sequence. Please participate. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
Should one refer to the "degree" of a pole of a meromorphic function, or to the "order" of the pole? The former seems analogous to the degree of a polynomial, so that seems to count in its favor.
Michael Hardy (
talk) 18:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Searching in GBooks and GScholar, order of a pole seems much more common. I have seen degree of a pole in the signal processing literature, however. --
Mark viking (
talk) 20:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
- IMO, a century ago, "order" and "degree" were almost synonymous. We still have a dab page
Order of a polynomial. Nevertheless, the modern trend seems to use "degree" for global properties and "order" for local properties. For example, the degree of an affine variety is the sum of the orders (of multiplicity) of its intersection with a linear variety of the right dimension. An important class of meromorphic functions consists of the
rational functions, which have the property that the signed sum of the orders of its poles and zeros is equal to zero. How would you say that if you use degree for the poles. Moreover, the degree of a rational function is the difference of the degrees of its numerator and its denominator (or, in some contexts, the maximum of these degree); this has nothing to do with the orders of zeros and poles.
- In summary, I agree with Mark. However, we must mention that old texts use "degree of a pole".
D.Lazard (
talk) 21:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
Lie derivative has been nominated as a good article and needs a reviewer. It would probably be more important for such a reviewer to be somewhat familiar with Lie derivatives and with how we write about mathematics within Wikipedia than it would to have much experience with good article reviewing. If you're interested, see
WP:GAN for the nomination (scroll down to "Mathematics") and reviewing instructions. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
Additional opinions at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobi point and
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible factor number would be welcome. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
Hello all,
I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from
GroupLens Research at the
University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this
meta-wiki page.
If you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us, please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.
Thank you,
Bowen
Bobo.03 (
talk) 23:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
Back at AfD:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (3rd nomination).
Sławomir Biały (
talk) 01:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
At
User:Mathbot/Changes to mathlists, this is the latest list of articles that are either newly categorized or new:
- Added
0-1 quadratic knapsack problem
- Added
Asymptotic dimension
- Added
Bernoulli's triangle
- Added
Frobenius inner product
- Added
Fully irreducible automorphism
- Added
Gradient discretisation method
- Added
Graph entropy
- Added
Individual pieces set
- Added
Multidimensional Empirical Mode Decomposition
- Added
Normal contact stiffness
- Added
Permutational analysis of variance
- Added
Topological recursion
- Added
Universal chord theorem
Michael Hardy (
talk) 21:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
An anonymous editor has been pushing to rename
enneahedron to
nonahedron (in a clumsy way, but I hope to redirect that to a more constructive discussion). Please participate at
Talk:Enneahedron if you have an opinion. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 07:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
Here are the latest new or newly categorized articles at
User:Mathbot/Changes to mathlists:
November 22, 2016
- Removed
Canonical basis (disambiguation) (article deleted/does not exist)
- Removed
Canonical line bundle (disambiguation) (article deleted/does not exist)
- Removed
Glossary of graph theory (is a redirect to
Glossary of graph theory terms)
- Removed
Natural neighbor (is a redirect to
Natural neighbor interpolation)
- Removed
Weighted planar stochastic lattice (WPSL) (is a redirect to
Weighted planar stochastic lattice)
- Added
Calculus I
- Added
Glossary of graph theory terms
- Added
Natural neighbor interpolation
- Added
Nonagonal prism
- Added
Tattvacintāmaṇi
- Added
Weighted planar stochastic lattice
- Mathematicians:added
Janusz Grabowski
- Mathematicians:added
Vladimir Burkov
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Michael Hardy (
talk •
contribs)
- Note also the deletion discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calculus I. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 21:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
More comments are welcome at
Talk:Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture#Laurel and Hardy.
Solomon
7968 07:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
Here are the latest new or newly categorized articles at User:Mathbot/Changes to mathlists:
November 25, 2016
- Removed
Malcev operation (is a redirect to
Heap (mathematics))
- Removed
Purplemath (article deleted/does not exist)
- Removed
Risk limiting post-election audit (is a redirect to
Risk-limiting audit)
- Removed
Santangelo Field (S-Field) mathematics (is a redirect to
Santangelo field)
- Added
Annales de Gergonne
- Added
Notakto
- Added
Risk-limiting audit
- Added
Santangelo field
- Mathematicians:added
Kim Thomas
November 24, 2016
- Removed
Complex vector space (disambiguation) (article deleted/does not exist)
- Added
Carry-less product
- Added
Fibonacci nim
- Added
Santangelo Field (S-Field) mathematics
- Mathematicians:added
Alfred Inselberg
November 23, 2016
- Removed
Cobordism theorem (disambiguation) (article deleted/does not exist)
- Removed
Nonagonal prism (is a redirect to
Enneagonal prism)
- Added
California Mathematics Project
- Mathematicians:added
James Morton Hyslop
Michael Hardy (
talk) 16:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
TeX and
LaTeX, and Wikipedia's notation that is consistent with those, sets lower-case (but not capital) Greek letters in italics, thus:
WP:MOSMATH accordingly prescribes that style for non-TeX notation, thus:
- Γ(sin θ) = x
However, it seems almost universal not to italicize lower-case Greek letters in Wikipedia articles. One sees things like this:
- exp(−βx)
when they ought to look like this:
- exp(−βx)
Why is this almost universally done? Is there something we can do about it?
Michael Hardy (
talk) 03:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not sure that this is the reason, but I think that the
MOSMATH entry may be partially at fault. It says to italicize lower-case Greek letters when they are variables, but remains silent about what to do when they are constants. The example given then muddies the water by italicizing the constant π. An explicit statement there might help, but I am not sure what that should say. I think a case can be made for lower-case Greek letters representing constants or parameters not being italicized.--
Bill Cherowitzo (
talk) 04:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
- That is not consistent with TeX style, and moreover, "variables" is meant in a typographical rather than mathematical sense.
Michael Hardy (
talk) 04:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I think it's just that editors have often been sloppy about such details. Except in cases where there's a good reason, we should follow TeX's defaults. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 06:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
- If it's just sloppiness, how do we explain the seeming consistency? Go through an article in which "βx" and things like it appear a hundred times, and it happens in every case without exception. Then go to the next such article and the same thing happens.
Michael Hardy (
talk) 17:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Until reading the above I for one would have sworn that
MOS:MATH actually recommends not to italicize lower-case Greek letters. (No idea why I never questioned this since every other style guide I have ever seen recommends to use italics for greek letters if they denote variables. For what it's worth, even the
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry mentions that "authors often appear to resist putting Greek letters into italic."
[1]) Anyway,
MOS:MATH#Greek letters used to say this:
- Some editors italicize lower-case Greek letters when they are variables (in line with the general advice to italicize variables): the example expression λ + y = πr2 would then be typeset as
''λ'' + ''y'' = ''πr''<sup>2</sup>
. However the examples in the other sections of this guide do not specify italic formatting of Greek letters.
- This was changed in July 2014 to say this:
- Italicize lower-case Greek letters when they are variables (in line with the general advice to italicize variables): the example expression λ + y = πr2 would then be typeset as
''λ'' + ''y'' = ''πr''<sup>2</sup>
. However consistency with TeX or LaTeX style would not italicize capital Greek letters.
- See
diff. That's much clearer now.
Tea2min (
talk) 09:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Ah, I knew it. In 2011,
MOS:MATH used to say this:
- Greek letters are not commonly italicized, so that one writes, for example,
λ + ''y'' = π ''r''<sup>2</sup>
, for the expression λ + y = π r2. However, the TeX font for Greek letters is an italic style, and some editors italicize Greek letters when they are variables (in line with the general advice to italicize variables): the example expression would then be typeset as λ + y = π r2 (by using ''λ'' + ''y'' = π ''r''<sup>2</sup>
).
- See
here.
Tea2min (
talk) 17:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
Perhaps the most frequent flaw in new mathematics articles is that no other articles link to the new article. (I just found
Borell–TIS inequality and
Three spheres inequality and added them to the
List of inequalities, and so far that's the only link to either of those two.)
Is there something that can be done to remedy the frequent occurrence of that particular fault among new math articles?
Michael Hardy (
talk) 21:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Wikipedia:Orphan#Listings has a link to
Wikipedia:Orphaned articles by WikiProject, from which "Orphaned articles in Mathematics" is missing but to which it possibly can be added.
- —
Wavelength (
talk) 21:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Editors who have
User:AlexNewArtBot/MathSearchResult watchlisted can check its entries for orphaned articles.
- —
Wavelength (
talk) 21:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Or just use Google
[2]. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 23:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
- We have
Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention/Mathematics#Orphaned_articles. In terms of remedy, is encouraging wiki links something to explicitly put into
MOS:MATH? --
Mark viking (
talk) 23:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
reply
- PNA/M stopped being automatically updated in June 2015. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 00:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
reply