Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2011/Oct

Someone's has put an AfD on List of important publications in mathematics
See Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics for the AfD. In particular, similar lists in bio and sociology have been deleted per WP:OR even though a majority supported keep. What kind of references exist for this list? RobHar (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If nothing else helps, it could be moved to the project space. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it worrying that the closing admin overrode what seemed to be a strong consensus to keep the other two similar lists. Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the point was that the "keep" votes didn't argue against the OR claim, so in some sense there was indeed a consensus that these lists violated OR. In other words, if you want to keep this list, make sure to argue against the OR problem. RobHar (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The claim was, specifically, that no sources exist that define which publications are "important" and which are not . I find that a problematic and unworkable requirement; in my opinion it is sufficient for inclusion that reliable sources describe a publication as important. See the inclusion criterion for List of common misconceptions: it does not require sources that define which misconceptions are common (which then would be a definition whose application would almost certainly still require a fair amount of original research), but only, next to notability, that the item is reliably sourced not only with respect to its factual contents, but also the fact that it is indeed a common misconception. I expect that many if not most items on our list actually do meet the criterion that reliable sources exist attesting to their importance; it is only a matter of finding these sources. --Lambiam 19:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is exactly right. I fought long and hard to keep the biology list. In the process I pruned the list down so that every item had a wikipedia article. I argued that having a wikipedia article demonstrated notability. That argument was not accepted. I entirely agree that the criteria should be that the item in the list has a source showing that it is notable. If the publication has an article, the article would not exist if such a source did not exist. Note also, that while the biology list AfD was recent, the sociology list Afd was a long time ago and that around that time, the biology list was put to AfD and not deleted. I also note that the mathematics list is not the only one at AfD. Medicine and several computer lists are there too. The Physics and Chemistry lists are not there (yet!). -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I notice that the same editor has nominated six such lists for deletion, in six subject areas that don't have much in common. This is the sort of action that causes a great deal of disruption on Wikipedia. In each case the reason given for nomination is search revealed no compilation of important works in this field. But it's unlikely that this editor has specialist knowledge of all six fields; such compilations have been found by others in the cases of mathematics and geology. So it strikes me as a frivolous sort of nomination. Does Wikipedia have an appropriate forum for protesting against actions of this kind? There should be one place for discussion of all these nominations, instead of it being fragmented across six different pages. Jowa fan (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The place to discuss disruptive actions (as in Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 1) is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. But it is not a good place to discuss the content issues: whether there is a place for such lists, in general, on Wikipedia; and what inclusion criteria are appropriate. A place for that may be Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy or Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. In fact, I think it is time for having a section in our Deletion policy explaining in more detail how it applies to, specifically, lists (although reaching consensus may prove impossible if people are not willing to accept compromise). For the page titles (move all back to the original "List of publications in ..."?) the venue would be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. --Lambiam 11:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Guys, if you think that "List of important publications in X" are helpful to the reader – provided that suitable inclusion criteria are defined – you should consider voting at the sister AfDs mentioned down at the Afd page. Nageh (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a problem. I feel strongly that articles should not be deleted because a) it's considered "not important", or that b) it's considered "not the sort of thing that should appear in an encyclopedia", or c) because someone with an overly tidy mind can't abide seeing semicomplete or sketchy articles, or d) because someone else with a stupid neurosis doesn't like lists.
 * But I haven't got time to rake through pages and pages of discussions on this topic in Deletion policy etc. etc. So what's going to happen is that I and people like me are likely to drift away from Wikipedia and start or join our own wikis which have a more welcoming attitude towards inclusion of minority-interest pages. Much as I'd love to get involved in all this, life's just too short. Sorry.
 * What's the big deal about deleting stuff anyway? Are we becoming so space-limited that such pages are costing Wikipedia money? If there is no such limiting factor, then why is it so important to delete stuff? --Matt Westwood 12:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well so much for me claiming I have no time for this ... the antagonist in question is User:Curb Chain who's a noob who's been reprimanded multiple times since April 2011 for doing destructive and disruptive things to serve an agenda that I cannot figure out. Is there a way to nominate a user for speedy deletion? --Matt Westwood 12:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the only AFD proposal I've seen that made no attempt to state any particular grounds for deletion. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well not that I need to see it deleted, but the list has definitely issues (from my perspective in particular the somewhat arbitrary book section). The WP:OR charge is not completely false either, since textbook section is mostly unsourced and to me it is not at all clear to me how these books are selected (either it is extremely incomplete or rather arbitrary).

I agree that asking for sources for the selection criteria itself, i.e. the definition of the list, is not an appropriate request as defining that criteria can be seen as a mere editorial decision. In fact most lists in WP, that I've encountered, work that way. However asking for sources for the individual entries, showing that they meet the defining criteria of the list is an appropriate request. If we don't have that, it easily turns into a list of publications that WP author X deems important, which is indeed WP:OR.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with this assessment. (I also get the feeling from the textbooks section that it's what graduate students happen to be reading these days rather than actual landmarks...)  I said over at the AfD that ultimately the list should probably be at most half of its current length, with better references.  I don't know what the best way to demand references for individual entries is (fact tags put in a conspicuous place?)  Maybe the best solution is for a WP:Wikiogre to take it over...   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bduke went through a considerable effort to make sure that all items in List of important publications in biology were in fact so notable that each had its own Wikipedia article. To no avail; the damning consideration was that there was no reliable source proclaiming, "The following are the important publications in biology: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ..."; ergo: OR. Q.E.D. (And if such a source existed, the article could instead be speedily deleted as a copyvio – you can't win) So our Wikiogre's time, if donated to our list, may also turn out to have been misspent. --Lambiam 14:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is indeed now the crucial question. There are a few editors that claim the latter interpretation is the correct one, from the notability pages they cite. However, I am not convinced. It needs people to investigate this issue in detail and argue the case strongly. I just do not have the time this week. I have a colleague arriving from Germany and we need to work on a paper together. Note also the obvious point that the closing admin will not read this discussion here, or at least be not influenced by it. Arguments need to be on the AfD not here. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue of textbooks is raised above quite rightly. In fact texts to not meet the criteria that is at the top of the page. The template that adds this was altered by the geology list editors a few weeks ago to remove all mention of textbooks and I added back the criteria that was already in place on the chemistry list, "or has had a massive impact on the teaching of XX" to the "Influence" section. The massive influence of course needs strong sources. I suggest you remove all textbooks that do not meet that criteria. Also please note that I am User:Bduke NOT User:BDuke. The latter was created by a sockpuppet, who I had irritated, many years ago-- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Off-topic, but could everyone please stop using the word criteria as a singular noun? It's really wince-inducing. --Trovatore (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a hidden agendum, then? :-) --Matt Westwood 22:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Though the historical point may be similar, agenda has become naturalized as a singular noun. Criteria has not.  Using it in the singular is inferior usage. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have several hidden agenda in my left pocket. One of those is to euthanize all who write "This criteria is". Michael Hardy (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What to do with Mathematical statement
Mathematical statement redirects to Proposition; yet the term does not occur in the article, which is all concerned with philosophy and logic, and not with mathematics per se. There is also Statement (logic), which leaves out the philosophical context, but is also not a good redirection target for Mathematical statement for the same reasons. In fact, Proposition and Statement (logic) might well be merged.

A closer fit in some sense is Sentence (mathematical logic), but again, it does not use the term (and there is no natural way to introduce it there), and is also not concerned with mathematics per se, but only aspects of mathematics that are, or have been modelled in terms of, mathematical formal logic.

I feel that Mathematical statement is a fundamental notion, used for instance in Effective method ("Church's thesis is not a mathematical statement") and Mathematical proof ("a convincing demonstration ... that some mathematical statement is necessarily true"). How can we best enlighten a reader who seeks to understand that notion? Should Mathematical statement have an article on its own? Or should it redirect somewhere – but then where? Ideas on how to handle this? --Lambiam 10:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I intuit that you're not going to like it, but my suggestion would be to delete it. We can't, and shouldn't try to, document all the nuances of mathematical speech.  I think we have far too many "articles" of this sort already (one prime example is if and only if).
 * The uses you give are specifically meant to be informal attempts to get an idea across in natural language. I think it misses the point to take them as establishing some technical notion of mathematical statement that they're trying to connect with something else.  In fact, even if mathematical statement is to stay a bluelink, I think it should be unlinked in the above examples, because to link it is to try to connect it with some precise technical notion, and that's exactly what they're trying not to do. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Suppose for a moment that the article could not stay a redlink: if deleted, it would be changed to a redirect or a stub by some well-meaning editor. Under that assumption, what would you recommend for Mathematical statement? CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose proposition is as good as anything. But I think most if not all links to it should be removed. --Trovatore (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No disagreement on delinking. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A logician may be distinguish between well-formed statement, truth claims, and propositions. For me, "truth claim" does not connote bivalence, whereas I think of a "proposition" as a (well-formulated) truth claim that is either true or false (bivalence).

Rocket Dynamics
A new article Rocket Dynamics has a load of personal maths in it. I put a prod on but that has been removed. I'm raising it here in case either there are some citations to cover the area or the person writing it can be talked to better than I do and might be a useful editor. Dmcq (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I redirected it to rocket engine, which already has the equation the editor derived. Ozob (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Separable extension
I write to seek consensus that the theory of separable algebraic extensions should be discussed in Separable extension. User:TakuyaMurata recently made a number of edits to the article which focused almost exclusively on the general theory of separable algebras over a field without putting any weight on the case of algebraic field extensions where the notion of separability is fundamental to Galois theory.

Of course, User:TakuyaMurata's additions to the article were very good because non-algebraic separable extensions are important in commutative algebra and algebraic geometry. However, my concern is based on WP:UNDUE; the theory of separable algebraic extensions is more fundamental in mathematics (largely because of Galois theory) than the theory of general separable extensions and weight should be placed on the former in Separable extension. In particular, separable algebraic extensions should at least be discussed in Separable extension; User:TakuyaMurata removed this discussion.

I have no objection to User:TakuyaMurata's additions to the article on Separable extension; I only have objection to that which he has removed from this article. I feel that both the theory of algebraic separable extensions and the theory of non-algebraic separable extensions should be discussed in Separable extension with weight placed on the former hence the current revision of the article. User:TakuyaMurata's edits remain as well as the general theory of algebraic separable extensions.

However, I think User:TakuyaMurata feels that only the general theory of separable extensions (without any weight on the theory of algebraic separable extensions) should be discussed hence his revision of the article. He has not explained the reasons for his edits except that he has created a new article Separable algebraic extension discussing solely the theory of algebraic separable extensions. I do not strongly object to having two different articles but I think it is far more appropriate to have one article discussing both aspects of the theory especially if the article is titled "Separable extension".

Let me also remark that an article on separable extensions should be aimed at people who are interested in Galois theory as well as commutative algebra and algebraic geometry. The article should also be accessible to as broad an audience as possible; I think it is reasonable to assume that the intended audience has some background in the rudimentary theory of field extensions and the current revision of the article is, in my opinion, accessible to such an audience.

I welcome any views on this matter with evidence for these views. -- PS T  03:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It reminds me of a similar discussion with Takuya Murata on 2009, see the first exchange here. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link! I am not sure what to do with Separable extension, however. User:TakuyaMurata has reverted my edits three times without sufficient explanation or without addressing my concerns. The explanation he has given is essentially that: "he has removed material in Separable extension that is already covered in Perfect field and Separable polynomial" but this is not true as he will see if he reads the material that he has removed carefully. Furthermore, the same reasoning can be applied to suggest that the article in his revision of Separable extension is redundant as it is already covered in Kahler differential and Separable algebra. I wait for an explanation from User:TakuyaMurata but at present I am hoping that other users can express their views on the matter either here or at Talk:Separable extension because User:TakuyaMurata is adamant that his revision is more appropriate and I fear that I will not be able to convince him otherwise alone. -- PS T  00:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with an editor with good intentions, but just can't see why his stuff is problematic. Wikipedia simply doesn't have a mechanism dealing with them. Anyway, in short, I replaced his version, basically because it's not good. It seems to me the only solution is content fork, which I did: separable algebraic extension. In any case, we need a tie-breaker; I just can't do anything since he can't have any reasonable content debate.
 * Taku: Firstly, please sign your post above (I think this is your post per this diff).


 * Secondly, you have written: "I'm not sure ... but just can't see why his stuff is problematic." If you cannot give a valid reason as two why "my stuff" is problematic, then my revision of Separable extension should be maintained. I think you mean: "I'm not sure ... but just can't see why his stuff isn't problematic." However, this does not make sense either because, if this were the case, then there would be nothing good about my revision of the article but you have not even provided a single valid reason as to why "my stuff" is problematic. I have responded to your criticizms but you are not addressing my explanations.


 * You write: "Anyway, in short, I replaced his version, basically because it's not good." Again, you have not explained yourself. Why is my revision not good? I have clearly addressed your points above with explanations as to why my revision is, indeed, appropriate.


 * Also, I do not see the harm in having my revision; I have included the material that you have added to the article as well as the material that was previously maintained in the article. The idea of "deleting material" should be taken very seriously in Wikipedia especially since many articles lack content. My revision of the article is very detailed and, as I have noticed numerous times on the internet, is actually very helpful to a number of students who are learning about Separable extensions. Of course, this is not a criterion for inclusion since Wikipedia is a reference work (and not a textbook) but nevertheless reference works should be accessible to as broad an audience as possible and I think my revision of the article is more appropriate than yours for at least this reason (although there are many other reasons as well, which I have explained above).


 * Your revision of the article begins by discussing the notion of separability in connection with tensor products; this places undue weight on this aspect of the theory of separable extensions which is inappropriate because separable algebraic extensions are more fundamental in mathematics. Finally, as I have mentioned numerous times, that which you have added to the article is very welcome and highly appropriate; however, I do not understand why you are intent on deleting perfectly good material from previous revisions of the article.


 * We have not arrived at a consensus but at the same time, Taku, you have not addressed the explanations that I have given you and the reason you cite is that "I just can't do anything since he can't have any reasonable content debate." Are you, by any chance, referring to our debate nearly three years ago at Ring (mathematics)? If so, then please remember that this was three years ago and I have to say I have changed a lot in this time. I look back on those discussions thinking that I handled the situation very poorly then.


 * However, I am changed now. For example, if you notice, I have not participated in Wikipedia at all in the past one year. I am certainly willing to engage in a reasonable content debate but, at least to me, it seems that you are the one who is not willing to do so. -- PS T  23:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Taku's content fork (hiving off PST's stuff to a separate page, where nobody ever needs to look at it) was clearly inappropriate. PST's characterization of the content dispute is misleading: Taku's version of the article is mostly about the algebraic case, just as PST's is. There is actually very little about the non-algebraic case in Taku's version - it's just that he gives the general definition first, which is not a good idea. By the way, reverting immediately isn't "waiting". --Zundark (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To Zundark first, the content fork is of course not ideal, but I just couldn't see other options. Also, my version also starts with "separable algebraic" extension first in the lede. In "definition", a general definition was given to avoid repetition, but that can be changed; I don't have a strong opinion about it.


 * My problem is that PST doesn't seem to accept any changes (if he can take additions.) For example, my edits are to make the exposition concise for the ease of reading, but, apparently, PST was not happy about it. I also removed some sentences that look strange to me. I don't have any problem with resurrecting it, "provided" it was somehow rephrased so it makes more sense to me. (Of course, some mathematical expositions don't make sense if you didn't have a proper background. I doubt that is the case here.)


 * Finally, to respond to PST, I'm sorry and this is nothing personal but I still don't think you understand how wikipedia works. (You edit summary like "thank you for editing but please ..." typifies WP:OWN.) Here, people change other people's works all the time, "not always to the positive effects." The principle we believe in is that in the end this should produce better materials than the individuals working alone. In other words, not everything in wikipedia is what you like or are happy with. In the end, we have different styles, and make compromises.
 * -- Taku (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Taku, you have written "... my edits are to make the exposition concise for the ease of reading ..." However, we must conform to WP:MTAA. I have observed students on the internet commenting that they found my revision of the article very accessible and they could understand the theory of separable extensions far better after reading the Wikipedia article. Also, please note that while I respect the fact that you are fully capable of reading and writing two distinct languages, your English is still not 100% fluent (please do not consider this as rude; I am the first to admit that I know nothing of Japanese but your English is very professional). I have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about how to write Separable extension and I have carefully crafted the sentences to make readability and accessibility very high. Your revision of the article simply is not at the same level of accessibility.
 * Also, while I fully agree that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, the fact of the matter is that virtually all of the best articles are mainly created by a single user (consider featured articles in mathematics, for example). Of course, I am not saying that I own the article or that you should not change the article; I said "thank you for editing ..." out of politeness. I have learnt that the only way to convince people of your point is to first compliment them.
 * Finally, can you please explain to me the problem of having a very detailed article with a lot of information? Separable extension is now a very high quality article after your additions and I am very happy about this. Let us continue improving the article for the time being. I hope I do not sound arrogant but I feel strongly that the current revision of the article is very readable and is of high quality. We do not need to trim material to make a concise article; if the reader wishes to learn about X, s/he does not need to read the entire article because the very detailed table of contents allows him/her to skip to that part of the article which discusses X. -- PS T  00:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries about your argument, but: "your English is still not 100% fluent ..." I hate to say this, but yours isn't perfect: "complement" in the above should be "compliment". Please go and look up the difference - it's a sickeningly common error, but in in mathematics it's important. --Matt Westwood 05:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I know the difference between "complement" and "compliment" as I am a mathematician (please take a look at my contributions). The error was a minor slip on my part. Taku's errors tend to be more significant (punctuation errors, grammatical errors, lack of coherence in writing etc.) if you look at his revision of the article, for instance.
 * However, your English grammar is not perfect: "... but in in mathematics it's important ..." I believe it is standard English grammar to not repeat a preposition in this manner. Also, "complement" is mathematical terminology whereas "compliment" is not; thus I do not understand your assertion that this error is important in mathematics. -- PS T  05:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it it is important. Are you you suggesting it's not not important? Okay, it's actually important in in fields that are not mathematics as well. Oh, and it's it's also standard grammar not to split the the infinitive: "to not repeat".
 * In short, please don't turn this into a liquid-squirting contest. I noticed a stupid mistake, which is all too often caused by ignorance rather than carelessness and I pointed it out in case it had been caused by ignorance. So you did know about it, and you were offended. Sorry. --Matt Westwood 06:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology but please note that I was not offended by the fact that you pointed out a mistake (although I really think that this was irrelevant to the discussion; my reference to Taku's english not being 100% fluent was an objective criticizm of his revision of the article and was relevant to the discussion at hand; moreover, I was polite about this criticizm as well). On the other hand, you write "I hate to say this, but yours isn't perfect: "complement" in the above should be "compliment". Please go and look up the difference - it's a sickeningly common error ..."; the manner in which this comment is phrased assumes that I do not know the difference between these two words. I would not have responded in the same manner if you had written (for example): "In the second paragraph of your comment ... "complement" should be "compliment" ..." In this case, if I did not know the difference between these two words, then I would have looked it up anyway.
 * I never said that the notion of "complement" is not important in mathematics; I only said that the fact that there is a similar word with an entirely different meaning - "compliment" - is irrelevant to mathematics. It would be relevant to mathematics if "compliment" was also mathematical terminology but it is not and hence my comment. -- PS T  08:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a great idea -- let's replace this discussion entirely with pointless nitpicking about typos! What do you say?  --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Making terms boldface
Hello all. I think it's pretty consistent that people either boldface or italicize important terms, but I wanted to see if there were any feelings about using the MoS to encourage boldfacing. I checked the MoS but I couldn't see anything addressing this. While both italics and bold serve to set apart words, italics simply are harder to see in a paragraph. Boldface letters are far more visually effective when you are scanning text to find a term (for instance, if you were redirected to a page containing the definition.) Rschwieb (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS seems very clear on this to me: "Italics may be used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences (whereas boldface is normally not used for this purpose)." —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Bold is used for the title word or title phrase or some variant of it early in the article, usually in the first sentence, and for synonyms and abbreviations introduced in the same sentence or close to it. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with other uses of boldface is that it is too effective in drawing attention. It becomes a distraction when one is trying to read the rest of the text.
 * If you want to find a particular term in the text, use the search function (control-f in my browser). JRSpriggs (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

While I believe that one should follow the MOS unless there is a very good reason not to, I am a little troubled by this recommendation. I find that italics in a sans serif font is just not effective enough, a problem I don't seem to have with a font like Times New Roman for instance. When a term is newly defined in an article I want the reader to be able to scan the page quickly when they see the term again and locate that definition. This may very well be a distraction for a casual reader, but for someone trying to understand a concept it seems much more natural than having to use a search function while reading a page. Just my two cents worth. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, I am strongly opposed to the use of bold in these situations and whole-heartedly support the MoS in this case. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm finding a lot of this feedback to be only semi-relevant, and I think it's because I wasn't clear in my original post. I meant to say that I'd like to encourage using boldface for the first instance of a newly defined term in an article. This occurs often in the first sentence, but often related terms are being defined in the body of the text. (Take integrally closed domain as an example.) Thus I find Michael Hardy's feedback to be the most relevant, because I'm recommending extending the policy he mentioned beyond the intro of the article.
 * Naturally boldface shouldn't be overused, and I only imagined it happening 5 or 6 times at most during an entire article. You can't use a search function to search for something you don't realize exists because it's an italic phrase buried in a paragraph. (I'm guessing the search function recommendation was probably made under the mistaken impression I meant to boldface every occurence of the new term.) If David Eppstein's quote from MoS is taken to mean "use italics, never bold", that is the clause I'd like to refine. I think that relying on italics to set off a new term is completely ineffective. Otherwise the manual seems silent on this otherwise common sense policy followed in almost every (readable) textbook.Rschwieb (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that if you want revise the MoS, then this is not the right venue for that discussion. The right venue would be Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting.TR 15:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)There is a lot of boldface used in Ratio and I think most of it belongs. Many texts use bold the first time a term is defined and I think that's what the MoS is emulating. Most articles would only define the subject so there is only a need to boldface that, but in many mathematical articles there is a need to define a host of terms related to the subject, unless you want to red link them which is worse. Certainly there should be some indication when a term is defined, especially if the article for that term is a redirect to a different article.--RDBury (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of the MOS: use boldface for the first introduction of the title of the article (or for terms that redirect to it, or terms that do not have an article but could reasonably redirect to it), italics for emphasis, and italics for new terms being defined that are not the article title or a reasonable redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This also seems to be the standard practice across (almost all articles) and other language wikipedias as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you TR for the recommendation to ask on the MoS page. I hadn't thought of posting directly there, I didn't know how much attention it would get. I'll restart this discussion there. Rschwieb (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I had overlooked that it was the wiki MoS page, and I wanted to note that it was never my intention to recommend this for the wiki MoS, just MoS:Math. I'm also learning if I don't write crystal-clearly, readers will interpret it in all sorts of silly ways I hadn't intended! The new recommendation is here at the MoS talk page. Rschwieb (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mathematical function templates
Category:Mathematical function templates is undergoing a bit of a cleanup at the moment with quite a few of the templates there being sent to TfD. These include several templates for performing specific calculations:, , , , , , , ,. See the discussion at Category talk:Mathematical function templates.--Salix (talk): 06:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above category seems (to me) to contain three types of templates.
 * templates which perform a function which, though possibly interesting, is not useful to the project
 * templates whose function is so simple it's not worth enshrining in a template (a parser function will do) and finally
 * templates which are actually useful
 * Come along an help out with the tidy up. J IM ptalk·cont 00:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

PDE mathematicians
While looking at the new article Mark Vishik (mathematician) (which has a "no categ." tag) I have noticed that there is no category for mathematicians working in PDE. I guess the reason is that it is not clear how should it be called. Is there a standard noun for this? Sasha (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The only word that comes to my mind is "analyst". But that appears to be used for many other things rather than for those who study mathematical analysis. JRSpriggs (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I might go for "PDE theorist", but I don't know that that term is really used much. Of course, have you ever heard of a Monte Carlo methodologist‎? RobHar (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done: Category:PDE theorists. Sasha (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please help populate it.Sasha (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Jacobson density theorem assist
Hello. I'm struggling to remember the following: let D be a division ring with discrete topology, and U be a D vector space with the product topology. Then the D linear transformations of U to U can use at least two topologies: the subspace topology inherited from UU, or the compact-open topology. I rusty enough not to remember which is proper for Jacobson_density_theorem. Maybe they are the same in the case when D has the discrete topology? Thanks for the help. Rschwieb (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a question about math, the proper forum within Wikipedia is Reference desk/Mathematics. This page is for discussion of how to edit Wikipedia's mathematics articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Mnemonic at Sieve of Eratosthenes‎
There's a minor dispute at Sieve of Eratosthenes‎ (yes, again) about whether a poem should be included in the article or not. Please comment at Talk:Sieve of Eratosthenes‎.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say in general mnemonics are an invitation for OR and rarely have much value, encyclopedic or otherwise. Most people of reasonable intelligence make up their own sentence whose acronym is SOHCAHTOA and many are tempted to add it to WP. You can remove them but it's the kind of thing that keeps popping up, for example there's an old AfD for trig mnemonics; the outcome was delete but we have a new version now with a slightly different name. It would be nice to have a guideline for when (not) include such things. I'm thinking at minimum it should appear in a reliable secondary source, meaning a source other than by the person who made it up, just as we require for poetry etc.--RDBury (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, so first of all it does appear in reliable secondary source - no less than Clocksin and Mellish 1981 itself! Second, it is not a mnemonic per se but rather a folklore, long in use as evidenced by its archaic spelling used in that authoritative textbook, repeat, in 1981. In light of this, I'd expect anyone who were quick with their opinion, to rethink it and to recast their votes whether to delete it or not from the page - yes, we vote on the question whether to remove it or not, because its presence is in long-standing consensus. WillNess (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

To all participants - the matter is now reopen for new vote in light of reliable secondary source. Please cast your vote on Talk:Sieve of Eratosthenes. So far I count 2 votes TO KEEP. WillNess (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Also please note, it is not a mnemonic but rather a folklore rhyme. Maybe the subsection name should be changed. WillNess (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter to me whether you call it a poem, a mnemonic, folklore, a rhyme, or anything else. (Though in the case of "folklore" you should be careful lest it be misunderstood as Mathematical folklore.)
 * At the moment there's quite strong consensus that it be removed. But all of this should be discussed at the Talk page indicated, not here.
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Quite strong" is currently 4 to 2, which is IMO not a large enough sample to call on. --Matt Westwood 19:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The call for vote was put here, so the call for a REVOTE is put here as well. WillNess (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Gallery of curves and Gallery of named graphs at AfD
Does WP:NOTGALLERY apply to Gallery of curves ? Discussion at Articles for deletion/Gallery of curves (2nd nomination). Gandalf61 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

See also Articles for deletion/Gallery of named graphs - same nominator, same reason given for nomination. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The same person nominated about a dozen such articles altogether; it's nothing aimed at a particular project though WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology is being hit hard.--RDBury (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call myself an inclusionist, but I've never seen such idiotic deletion nominations as in the past two weeks. Is it like this all the time, just that it doesn't effect us in mathematics? is it fish-slapping season? or what?  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I'm certainly not an inclusionist and yet I feel inclined to post 'procedural keep' !votes on all of these. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

multimagic cube
Per my year-old request to merge bimagic cube, trimagic cube, and tetramagic cube into multimagic cube, and in the total absence of comment, I've done it. Please check to see if any of the references to the embedded stubs need to be changed. The only ones I can see are some of the semi-automated lists, and Book:Recreational mathematics. I don't understand Books....

I may also handle trimagic and tetramagic squares, per a request at the same time, but I haven't decided yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Shapley–Folkman lemma at FAC
The article, initiated by David Eppstein, has received many helpful reviews from this project already. The FA project would benefit from mathematicians' insights, from simple support/oppose judgments, to short copy-editing volunteering, to more ambitious commenting/editing.

Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Vector measure: Product function
Is there a simpler discussion of product function, than the universal definition given in product (category theory)?


 * UPDATE Kiefer .Wolfowitz 03:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In advanced measure-theory, the Shapley–Folkman lemma has been used to prove Lyapunov's theorem, which states that the range of a vector measure is convex. Here, the traditional term "range" (alternatively, "image") is the set of values produced by the function. A vector measure is a vector-valued generalization of a measure; for example, if p1 and p2 are probability measures defined on the same measurable space, then the product function (p1, p2) is a vector measure, where (p1, p2) is defined for every event ω by
 * ( p1, p2 ) (ω)= ( p1(ω), p2(ω) ).

I didn't tested it in WP-en, maybe there is still some localisation work to be done. --KMic (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've done a few more using Google to find them, but one was especially interesting:. In it I fixed four lines even though only one was a 'Failed to parse' error. The others I found by finding '\dot\hat' in the edit window, after spotting two at once. The problem is it will happily render this, but incorrectly, e.g.


 * $$\dot\hat{\mathbf{x}}$$, which should be $$\dot{\hat{\mathbf{x}}}$$

This was brought up in the VP thread but I didn't think through the implications. Neither ways of searching (the script or Google) will find these, and they're very difficult to spot (these are often very formula heavy pages). There's no easy way to search the wikisource that I know, and potentially a large number of patterns to match (many symbols, maybe spaced or with other things involved).-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I can at least explain what is going on, and if I am correct you can blame me for the bug. Texvc has a tendency to add extra braces to sanitize its input.  It also adds lots of spaces.  In combination these two things do not cause much harm together.  Unfortunately this cause a small problem with code   which would get parsed to something like $${\operatorname {sen}}x$$ which obliterates the point of \operatorname.  To fixed this bug I removed some unneeded braces (uneeded from the latex point of view, clearly needed from the texvc point of view).  Unfortunately there is lots of latex code which seems like it should compile under latex but doesn't.  For example, at least on my systems $$\hat\mathbf{C}$$ fails to LaTeX, but the extra braces that texvc was putting in would sanitize this to something that would LaTeX. To complicate all of this some of it is system dependent.  This seems system depedent.  For example on my University's Unbuntu system $$\dot\hat {x}$$ simply doesn't compile under LaTeX, while under Mageia it does compile but offset as shown above, and in any case it should be sanitized as it used to be.  I just had this bug called to my attention and I am working on it now.  Thenub314 (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I also found  not working,
 * $$\frac 1 \sqrt{2}$$
 * but  does. (Note: I don't know whether this problem is due to MW 1.18, nor if it has already been fixed). --KMic (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is trivial, but the new stricter parser would try to interpret this as, which won't work, whereas the previous version of the parser would somehow do look-ahead and some right-to-left parsing to get the intended meaning.
 * By-the-way, does that mean that texvc is now replaced by a true LaTeX-solution.--LutzL (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I helped create Help:Cite errors, the associated help pages, templates and maintenance categories. We can create a template and apply it to the interface pages for each error message that will then put article pages into a maintenance category. If desired, we can create a help page for each error message. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 18:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Tried that ages ago. Math error message support only plain text, not wikitext, so you can't add categories or links to them.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * How about now that Math is an extension, not core? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 19:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Updating OEIS Template
I'm going to go ahead an remove the icon from the OEIS template per the discussions above. An example using my test version is:
 * The first few amicable pairs are: (220, 284), (1184, 1210), (2620, 2924), (5020, 5564), (6232, 6368).

The people who like the icon don't seem to be in the majority or feel that strongly about it. Plus, as mentioned above, putting in-line icons in text is contrary to the MOS. Another problem is that doing a text search for "OEIS" does not work when it's an icon. It's not a straight revert though since I left out the fullurl code; the only effects this seems to have is to add a link icon and remove the mouse-over text. I'll make the change tomorrow sometime unless there's a strong objection (e.g. someone says it will break hundreds of article pages). The issue of whether links to OEIS should be changed to references or moved the 'External links' section of an article is still being debated, and the discussion of what to do with redundant OEIS variants is still unresolved.--RDBury (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what the icon was doing was flagging a certain kind of permitted inline link (much like interwiki links, ISBN links, links to texts in the Bible, and external links for standard sets of codes such as language codes or disease codes: ICD9 ). However, we don't normally do that with icons, and even the "link" icon is only sometimes used; what you have seems to be more in line with standard practice. However, I would strongly oppose changing OEIS links to references. -- 202.124.72.203 (talk) 06:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: The change has been made. I also moved the documentation so all four templates use the same included page, this avoids having copies of the the same text in different pages and the associated version control issues. I also moved 'OEIS url' to 'OEIS link', changed it to an inter-wiki link and added it to the documentation page. It wasn't being used except in one article so this shouldn't be a problem; I'm hoping it will start to be used again now that the documentation defines a specific use for it. I'm still not sure what should be done with OEIS2C/oies since they seem to be used for different things in different articles. Maybe the best thing would be to go case by case.--RDBury (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My user page MfDed
My user page has been sent to MfD. If you have an opinion on this, you may express it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JRSpriggs. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just closed this discussion as speedy keep: nomination withdrawn. Jowa fan (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My thanks to all who supported me at MfD, and especially to Polyamorph and Jowa fan. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Roman arithmetic
The Roman arithmetic page really needs help. I think the Romans themselves didn't use them for math, but there's no decent sources in the article to suggest who, if anyone, ever did try to use them in that fashion. Is there anyone here who can help this poor thing out? Maybe it needs to be moved to Arithmetic using Roman numerals, or this article needs to explain how Romans did math, which it doesn't.--~TPW 16:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * They used counting boards with pebbles (calculi) to do arithmetic. I'm not sure why we would need an article on doing calculations in Roman numerals since it wasn't done historically and isn't really done now either. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspected as much, but didn't have the knowledge to back up the assertion. If anyone can prove a negative, it's mathematicians!--~TPW 16:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that there's much salvageable from the article. The opening
 * In mathematics, Roman arithmetic is the use of arithmetical operations on Roman numerals.
 * is entirely wrong: it's much more classics than math, and no one uses that term to mean arithmetic on Roman numerals. The two paragraphs on performing arithmetic are unsourced and deal mostly with subtractive notation (a late invention!).
 * The idea of doing calculations on numerals themselves was so unheard-of that when it came into fashion (after Fibonacci's time) its practitioners even had a special name (algorists)...!
 * Frankly this falls much more into the domain of other WikiProjects than Math (Classics? Ancient Rome? History?).
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not know what the Romans actually did, but it is certainly not impossible to do simple arithmetic using Roman numerals. First, change all "IV" to "IIII", "IX" to "VIIII", "XL" to "XXXX", etc.. Then for addition, sort all the "I"s before the "V"s, etc.. Convert "IIIII" to "V", "VV" to "X", etc.. Then reverse the first step as appropriate. For multiplication, you have to know what the products of the letters are, e.g. V*L = CCL. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's certainly possible! I do it when I'm adding two numbers, the larger of which is a Roman numeral.  It's just a matter of what was actually done by the Romans. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * First, the Romans would not have used subtractive notation, so anything dealing with that in the article is OR and should go away. Smith's History of Mathematics has a short section on how the Romans might have done addition; it's fairly speculative but the gist is that it's hardly rocket science and they probably did not need anything like an abacus. I get the impression that little on that kind of thing was preserved. So if you keep to facts then there's probably not much you can put in an article like that.--RDBury (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly small sums would have been done mentally, just like today. Larger sums would have been done on an abacus.  Only complicated calculations would require more (calculating board and/or cerae and stylus). There are surviving instruction manuals and even some calculations in progress (though mostly in later times, like the Vindolanda tablets). CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a pretty ancient article but doesn't seem to have ever been prod'ed, I'll do that as I think i was just something made up by some editor. Dmcq (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As to small sums judging from how the Japanese do things I'd guess they in effect used a mental abacus with stones if the problems were simple enough for mental arithmetic rather than representing the Roman numerals in their minds and calculating with them. Anyway my prod was removed so I'll give it a day and escalate to AfD as there aren't any citations supporting the topic. Dmcq (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I originally created the article based on some notes from an old college handout but lost interested in it when 95% of my work was removed in 2007. I am against deletion - not because I created it - but that there is value from a history of Roman science and technology perspective. As pointed out here, very little is available to cite (as far as we know) but that makes it all the more important that is known is preserved. I advocate that the article get restarted with a better foundation of what is known about how the Roman's did math. Even if it is stub, it will still accurately what is currently known about that historical period. At present, there is a redirect to Roman Abacus, so there is need to rush to AfD. --D. Norris 10:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denorris (talk • contribs)
 * It seemed reasonable to me to redirect rather than remove as some people occasionally ask how the Romans calculated using their numerals. The answer seems to be they didn't, they used an abacus. Is that a whole separate article? Dmcq (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the the way the Romans calculated would be worth an article, yes. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Progress in subcategories for Mathematical Theorems
Hello. It looks like the Mathematical theorems category is much improved, since the subcategories are all under 200 pages. I was wondering if there was any work still left, or if it is pretty much "mission accomplished" for now. Rschwieb (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's done for now as far as I'm concerned, though I'm certainly not going to try to stop someone from going forward if they want to put the effort into it. To me the high priority issue was that the Mathematical theorems category was too big to use, an issue that became apparent when I tried to use it to find an article, and that issue is now resolved, though there are probably still articles in the main category that should be resorted.--RDBury (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference resources guidelines section
I took the liberty of creating a new section, WikiProject Mathematics/Reference resources in our Reference resources page. I believe this captures the outcomes of several discussions here on which math websites should be considered reliable sources. Discuss, revise or revert as you see fit.--RDBury (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks good. I made some small changes to the wording, but it looks useful. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it so far. We should add a section of how to deal with arxiv papers. Another point would be some general advice regarding websites of math departments, institutes. lecturers and blogs of prominent mathematicians.
 * Another reliable source that might be useful to include here as well would be the the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz
The community is invited to participate in a request for comment about my editing: WP:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and closing time
Hi!

The RfC is about to close.

I'd like to thank the project members for supportive comments and helpful, thoughtful statements, from which I can learn.

Best regards,

Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's closed. Thanks again for the supporting words and indeed the helpful criticism. Now it's time to get the SF lemma through FA status. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 19:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

An old issue?
I've recently rewritten the lead of Bijection, hopefully making it more accessible. Because the article is about bijections, I was able to define bijections first and only later bring up surjections and injections ... not the traditional way to broach the subject. What I've done is elementary, jargon-free and non-controversial, but if pressed I don't think that I could come up with a reference for this approach. The issue in my mind is whether or not this is considered to be OR. Let me point out that I would not have done this or anything similar in the body of the article – I would consider that OR. I am only talking about taking this kind of liberty in the lead, for the purpose of providing a gentler introduction to a topic. I am confident that this issue or something similar has been brought up before (in reference to math articles) and would appreciate any pointers to previous discussions. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I like this change. It's a good idea to avoid the technical terms injective and surjective in the very first sentence.  I don't think it constitutes original research.  I can imagine some wikilawyer pointing accusingly at WP:SYNTH, but I think people often misunderstand the difference between synthesis and compilation.  What we have here is a collection of facts, for each of which a source could be provided if necessarily (although I'd hate to actually see a multitude of footnotes).  "Original research" would be if you drew from those facts a conclusion that isn't in a reliable source.  That's not the case here.
 * I don't recall any similar discussions in recent months, but it must surely have come up at some time. If anyone else can remember a similar discussion, I wouldn't mind seeing a link to it.
 * I do worry though that the new version is a little bit too long for a lead. What about just keeping the first sentence, then moving conditions (1)–(4) to a new section at the top of the article entitled "Formal definition" or similar?
 * Also, the discussion of bijections and relations has the potential to cause confusion. The phrase The process of "turning the arrows around" does not usually yield a function needs a caveat: in the context where this phrase appears, we're talking about bijections, so reversing the arrows does always yield a function (as you point out next).  Currently it could seem that the one sentence asserts simultaneously that it's not always a a function and that it (the same thing) is a function.  I know what you mean, but I can imagine it being unnecessarily difficult for someone new to this subject. Jowa fan (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In general leads are supposed to summarize an article, so a cite shouldn't be needed for every statement if similar statements are in the body of the article and those have cites. Also, math articles tend to follow WP:Scientific citation guidelines which allow you to summarize sources rather than giving fact by fact footnotes.--RDBury (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Somewhere in there you might want to say that property (1) is called "total" (the correlative of "onto") and property (2) is called "single-valued" (the correlative of "one-to-one"). JRSpriggs (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. A section of Scientific citation guidelines dealt directly with my concern, it seems that I was being a little too hawkish with my interpretation of NOR. I've re-edited the page, incorporating the suggestions made here and elsewhere, so again thanks. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal/discussion of interest to this project
Here: Support check: a Wikipedia math naming principle?.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Move request
I've asked to move the article Gauss–Codazzi equations around. Feel free to join the discussion. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Use the most common name, not the alphabetized name. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)