Talk:MathWorld

Eric's Treasure Trove
I've changed Eric's Treasure Trove of Mathematics to Eric's Treasure Trove of Science because the FAQ's at MathWorld and ScienceWorld both seem to indicate that the original title of his first website (compiled from his working notes) was Eric's Treasure Trove of Science. I'm uncertain this is correct, but sufficiently certain to update it to reflect "science". Can someone please confirm this or cite a counterexample for where it was listed as "...of Math"?

--SocratesJedi —Preceding comment was added at 09:13, 17 July 2004

the moronicity of MathWorld and Wikipedia
dear wikipedia addicts:

whence did wikipedia became rule this and rule that? Use your brain and respect yourself. When you stick to a rule, it would be because you judge it proper. Meanwhile, try to improve your own learning, and respect those who have more than you. Try to get out of the sophomoron status. Ingest some perspectives hither and thither: http://www.techcentralstation.com/111504A.html http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 (actually, go read a few printed books by dead authors)

as to the edit in question, See: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WallpaperGroups.html http://xahlee.org/SpecialPlaneCurves_dir/Intro_dir/eric_weisstein1999.png http://xahlee.org/SpecialPlaneCurves_dir/Intro_dir/eric_weisstein2000.png

and you shall see how wallpaper group is waywardly categorized under Finite Groups. (if that is ever corrected, i demand an acknowdgement.) As to it asserting that the sphere is a minimal surface, i don't have a printed artifacts of evidence. But a gander at year 1999 version (http://icl.pku.edu.cn/yujs/MathWorld/math/s/s556.htm) and you'll see the veracity of the general comment of how bad the work was. And if you are a math professor teaching graduate courses, you are aware how full of egregious errors and inanities MathWorld is today.

MathWorld is to Mathematics as Wikipedia is to Britannica. Good for recreation, laughable for research. And that Eric W fellow is self-pitching auto-aggrandizing, so are wikipedians being OpenSourcing sophomorons in general. Nevertheless, they are tremendously useful as they are. They need not be burdened with the "encyclopedia" title. And i believe, thru evolution of the editing process and thoughts, eventually wikipedia can become a reference for experts as well. But that will not happen as long as these wiki-sophomorons chanting NPOV this or Wiki-Creeds that.

Xah Lee 09:45, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)


 * You may firstly want to not insult your fellow editors who are acting in good faith to making sure that Wikipedia articles are falling under obvious Wikipedia policy which you should have already been aware of. Don't criticise other editors for trying to make articles compliant to mandatory policy which you have overlooked.
 * Secondly, I may ask you to use your own brain and think about your argument. You claim that Mathworld's sphere article says it's a minimal surface, yet the outdated copy you provide, and the current articles say nothing about minimal surfaces.
 * You criticise Mathworld's article for implying that the wallpaper groups are finite but you cannot provide any independent source that makes this criticism? Do you have any independent criticsm of Mathworld's accuracy? I have repeated this twice before (once should have been sufficient): Wikipedia cannot take a point of view. If you understood NPOV, you'd understand that we need independent criticism. This means criticism from someone other than you, or I, or anyone on Wikipedia. You would also understand that if you found this independent criticism, that would be entirely acceptable to list here?
 * Perhaps you need to stop your own self-aggrandizement and read up on some of Wikipedia's mandatory policy. Here is a link: NPOV. Dysprosia 10:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting links. I especially thought the comments about anti-elitism and antagonistic persons being a problem absolutely correct.  But I'm rather puzzled by why you think you are justified in citing these articles and telling others to respect those "who have more [learning] than you".  You certainly have not adhered to this kind of behavior yourself (cf Talk:Manifold).  On the contrary, you've insulted the learned mathematicians who have been very courteous to you and also called their contributions "moronic".   --C S 10:47, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
This appears to exist only as a pointer to one of a series of websites operated by a commercial organisation as part of a promotional exercise. It cites no references. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 08:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a site widely used on Wikipedia as a reliable source for Wikipedia math articles. --Pleasantville 14:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Pleasantville. I added a reference to a journal article about MathWorld by Weinstein.--agr 15:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't appear that way to anyone except the person who nominated it for deletion. Michael Hardy 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

November 0, 1999
Although I appluad counting from 0, November 0 is obviously not a valid date. Thoughts, anyone? Piboy51 (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Not up to date
The articles in this wiki are not kept up to date. Some of them are several years behind. Wikipedia is often kept within a month or so, and it is only that I sometimes need stuff that doesn't get into Wikipedia that I am always looking for better sources. agb 173.233.167.50 (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)