Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2014/Oct

Category:Pretzel knots and links
Category:Pretzel knots and links, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Pretzel knots and links (mathematics). If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! Harej (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Combinatorics terminology
Hi, I am sitting over a text that has the following passage: "The oligonucleotide spectrum owes much of its discriminatory power to the number of possible oligonucleotides: if n is the size of the vocabulary and w is oligonucleotide size, the number of possible distinct oligonucleotides is nw; for example, there are 45=1024 possible pentanucleotides." I would like to link it to the appropriate English Wikipedia article but am not sure which one this would be. On the German Wikipedia, the relevant information is in Variation (Kombinatorik), and that article links to Partial permutation here, which seems a plausible English equivalent to me, yet the article is written in a way that I am not sure it actually covers the same subject as the German one. Any pointers or clarifications? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Partial permutation is, in the German terminology, a variation without repetitions. You want variations with repetitions, a different concept. I think the relevant article is n-tuple. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Essentially what you have is exponentiation. This section of the article talks about elements from an alphabet Exponentiation. Maximilianklein (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for checking. I'm going for Exponentiation. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that you have made the correct choice based on the content of these articles. However, the natural combinatorial term would be "n-tuple". The problem here is that n-tuple redirects to tuple where the concept gets confounded with a different usage (in computer science mostly) and gets buried in an attempt to encompass all meanings of tuple. I actually like the "variation with repetition" terminology used in German, but unfortunately that is not commonly used in English. I will attempt to add something to tuple that supports the n-tuple redirect. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Geometric nonlinear finite element analysis
Dear mathematicians: This old AfC submission needs a lead and some rewriting, but is this a notable topic, and should the page be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The topic is already better covered by Finite element method and related articles, and this stub adds nothing of interest. —Quondum 19:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd keep it. I agree this is a notable topic. Perhaps I am missing something, but nonlinear finite elements aren't covered Finite element method, as far as I can tell. We do have a good Wikiversity course on Nonlinear finite elements, which suggests that there is plenty of material out there upon which to base an article. This article only seems to cover geometric nonlinearities; there are material nonlinearities and boundary nonlinearities as well. --Mark viking (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, if nonlinear finite elements aren't covered, the material could be added so that it is covered, or it could be its own topic, with a link to it from the other article. This is assuming that  doesn't point out where it's already covered.  If it's to be a separate topic, someone will have to write a lead summary for it (my math is too rusty). &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Beurling vs Beurling–Ahlfors transforms
The link Beurling transform redirects to Singular integral operators of convolution type while Beurling–Ahlfors transform redirects to Grunsky matrix. My understanding is that these are essentiually the same thing. What is the appropriate target? Deltahedron (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the two redirects seem to refer to the same transform. Singular integral operators of convolution type is a bogus target; it looks like it should be Singular integral operators of convolution type. Given that the section Grunsky matrix refers to Singular integral operators of convolution type as the main article, it seems reasonable to have both Beurling transform and Beurling–Ahlfors transform redirect to Singular integral operators of convolution type.. --Mark viking (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * They are the same according to . Deltahedron (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect Radical extension
For the past three years, the redirect Radical extension has been targeted at Separable extension, but an IP editor has recently objected to this, on the grounds that the "redirect is nonsensical. Radical extensions are neither identical to nor special cases of separable extensions nor are they mentioned anywhere on that page." Now, I know little of Galois theory, so I thought I'd ask for input here as to whether a more suitable target (or targets) is available, or whether the original should be restored. Thank you, VeryCrocker (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Abelian extension (the redirect target of Solvable extension) sounds like a better choice to me for a redirect from radical extension. (Or we could have separate articles but these are all very closely related.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Or Abel–Ruffini theorem? Deltahedron (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Are Glossary_of_commutative_algebra or Purely inseparable extension not potential candidates? I only ask because they mention the term. If more than one target is suitable, a disambiguation page could be made. --VeryCrocker (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the term "radical extension" is ambiguous — it's a subextension of a solvable extension, which is in turn an extension that can be factored into a tower of abelian extensions. But maybe since there are several relevant articles to link to, a stub that links to all of them would be appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO, "radical extension" deserves to be a true article, because of the "fundamental theorem of Galois theory of equations" (the name is mine): If a field K of characteristic different of n contains the n-th roots of unity, an extension of degree n of K has a cyclic Galois group if and only it is a radical extension. This is this theorem that implies that a polynomial equation is solvable in radicals if and only if its Galois group is solvable. I'll try to write this article. D.Lazard (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A good place to start might be a few lines at Glossary_of_field_theory. Deltahedron (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Modular exponentiation
We have long-standing articles at Modular exponentiation and exponentiation by squaring. (They should probably be merged, but that's not what I'm here to talk about.) Recently, a new editor has written a third article, Discrete exponential function, that covers much of the same material. He has rather persistently linked to it from other articles, such as Discrete logarithm. I have proposed a merge, but the editor refuses to respond to any kind of discussion. So we could use some input from the community in this little knot of articles. Mgnbar (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The article had no content beyond what's already in modular exponentiation, so I changed it to a redirect. Ozob (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Spinors
I have been attempting for some time to make the lead of the spinor article accessible to a wider audience, in part on my own impetus, but in part on the helpful urgings of others of varying skill levels. But now we seem to be at an impasse that would benefit from some outside input. Four milestones in the recent bout of edits are:
 * August 14 revision
 * This revision from yesterday, which was the culmination of I think the most input from other editors.
 * This revision from today, where I tried to get some "high brow" content into the first paragraph.
 * Finally, this is me giving up, and basically going back to the philosophy adopted by the August 14 revision, modulo saying things in hopefully a way that doesn't require the reader to know what an "irreducible representation" is, which I think is far beyond what likely readers of the article are already familiar with.

I would like some input on a way forward. It has already been suggested that the way forward is backwards, but I would find it hard to believe that all of the work and discussion in the mean time has been for naught. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is now also this revision, thanks to helpful edits from User:RogierBrussee. I would appreciate any input from project members.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have made a few further changes here. Someone else really needs to look at this the editing environment there has become problematic. One editor, who has accused me of ownership there (although it rather looks the other way around) is now threatening to revert to his preferred revision.  The editor threatening to revert has run roughshod over rather a lot of discussion that has taken place, and not really correctly understood the sequence of edits that took place as the product of those discussions.  I would happily welcome more constructive input, but this post seems to indicate no interest in constructive discussion. More opinions are urgently needed there.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

To update, RogierBrussee has reverted to one of Sławomir's versions. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 20:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I think this revert leaves the lead in worse shape. Does anyone disagree?  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I hate to say this, but it is not as good as this version you wrote, long before the "introduction" section was added. Based on the comments at talk:spinor not everyone is happy with it though... M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 21:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I reverted to one edit after my last edit which was indeed an improvement. After that things got worse than what they were in my opinion. More to the point I had asked Slawomir to back off after he spent days improving things without getting to a satisfactory result and let me have a go at it to which he agreed, and I would let it be known that I was finished. I object to Slawomir taking of on a new editing spree just hours after my first edits and before I said I was finished. I wrote that i would revert his edits and I did. After that I moved the two more technical paragraphs to the overview section and deleted what was there. In my opinion that is an improvement. Slawomir obviously disagrees and reverted everything. There seems to be this mistaken idea that spinors are just like vectors and one just has to use some magic explanatory tool like the non simply connectedness of the Rotation group. That is just not true. Root systems or Clifford algebra's will get you the existence of spinor representations, and with a lot of explanation you can relate that to representation theory but it is just not trivial. Therefore it is pointless to try to explain things for the laymen. I am all in favour making things as simple as possible but not simpler. For example saying that the Clifford algebra is generated by the gamma matrices misses the point, because what you have  to do is to construct a representation of the abstract Clifford algebra (which is constructed from the vector space) to a concrete matrix algebra. So every choice of orthonormal basis and every choice of gamma matrices gives a different, albeit isomorphic representation of the Clifford algebra and a different but isomorphic representation of the Spin group. See? Seems like a trivial difference at first but now start reading Weinbergs (otherwise excelent) book on quantum field and notice how he starts writing down explicit gamma matrices on page 3 or so, which is horrible because now what depends on the choice of gamma matrices and what does not.    The worst thing about this whole affair is that all this energy would be better spent on other sections. I particularly hate the example section which seems to be written by someone from geometric algebra people that want every thing inside the  Clifford algebra.  It would be so much better if the different constructions were run through and compared in dimension 3 and 4 (and perhaps dimension 2). RogierBrussee (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Therefore it is pointless to try to explain things for the laymen." This is an absolutely wrong starting position in editing an article that is likely to be read by probably many high school and college students, who are "laymen" by the standards of the revisions you have in mind. The lead must at least convey a sense of what the thing is about to all of the likely readers of the article. To disregard this consideration is astonishing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. This flies in the face of WP:TECHNICAL. We should strive to keep the leads of our articles at as low a level of difficulty as possible, while retaining the details of the subject later in the articles. Writing an article that can be read only by people who are already experts is pointless. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See my lengthy explanation on laymen in the Talk page.

TL;DR Given that many of the mathematically and physically literate people here are already somewhat confused on the details about this subject (really nobodies fault I hasten to say, the confusion is widely taught), clarity and correctness take precedence over intuitive understanding because _there is no intuitive route to the existence of spinors_  , at least not one that I and apparently Michael Atiyah  is aware of. The properties of spinors are easy enough to explain  for say first year physics students, and  I did, I think. In my opinion it is OK if even a bright high school student comes to the conclusion that they have something to do with the geometry of vectors and quantum mechanics, but for a proper understanding he or she needs more background. That is just the way it is, and no mention of WP:Technical can change that. Anyway I am tired of fighting this. It is not that I don't want to cooperate, I just cannot do it when every time I make an edit it is reverted within minutes or "improved" before I have time to get to a new round of editing. I have tried giving Slawomir input which he did try to incorporate at some point but only after a very long and frustrating process for all of us and with a result that nobody was pleased with. I have work, wife and kids and they all need attention. RogierBrussee (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The bottom line here is that you seem to be of the opinion that your revision of the lead and introduction to the article is better than the current one. The community already responded quite positively to the initial edits aimed at making the lead accessible to a wider audience.  The present version is the product of many revisions in response to comments on the talk page.  Notwithstanding your current frustration, I think the current revision is superior than any that has preceded it, in large part due to your own efforts.  But it is there for all to see, and I think others should be allowed to judge.


 * "For a proper understanding, one needs more background" &mdash; yes, but so what? That does not mean we shouldn't try to explain things as best as we can to those that don't have this background.  Surely that is one of the most important functions of an encyclopedia.  Also, for a sufficient definition of "proper", this is surely an unreasonable attainment to expect of any reader of an encyclopedia article about spinors.  Entire books are written about spinors.  And even Sir Michael Atiyah, as you have helpfully pointed out, admits to not understanding them "properly".   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say that despite all the frustration, head-butting and occasional drama, real strides have been made in this article. Comparing the August 11 version to the current version, both the lead and introduction are much, much improved in clarity and accessibility. I know there are still issues to hash out, but good job, you all. --Mark viking (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you RogierBrussee and Sławomir Biały (in no particular order) for the good work on the spinor article, and thank you for listening to every single concern from us mere mortals in the spinor world. YohanN7 (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The recent edits have been a big step backwards in readability. I have more or less reverted these to the earlier revision, modulo minor copy editing, that met with favorable reviews as per above, pending discussion.  My reasons have been articulated in detail at Talk:Spinor.  Outside opinions would be helpful.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Scott domain unsourced
Looks like Scott domain has remained unsourced since 2009. I do see some real textbooks in books.google.com that could be used as sources, but if anyone happens to know a bit about this discipline's literature, they would probably do a better job than me picking random sources. Any takers? Rschwieb (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Article for deletion Concave hull
Discussion at Articles for deletion/Concave hull. — D.Lazard (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Linear Threshold Unit
Dear mathematicians: This old AfC submission is about an interesting topic and there appear to be plenty of references. I added some, but being unfamiliar with the topic I may have messed it up. Can someone please check this over, and also tell me if this is a notable topic that should be kept and improved? Or is it covered somewhere else under another title? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It is possibly notable. An LTU is a historical name for a kind of artificial neuron proposed by McCulloch and Pitts and is also a simple kind of perceptron. My recommendation is to merge and redirect to the Artificial neuron section, where LTUs are already mentioned and where a reader can get a better context. If there are no objections, I can do this. --Mark viking (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead, Mark viking. I'm sure that you can do a better job than I.  Please remember to credit Justprajwal, who created the draft, in your edit summary. Let me know when you are done, so I can move, redirect and attribute the old draft. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The selective merge has been done at this diff. Please check that I did it correctly. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. The draft is now a redirect at Linear threshold unit. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Image of calculator deleted from Baker percentage article
My apologies if this question is not of interest to this group. I had placed an image of a calculator in the baker percentage article, since they're commonly used with baker's percentages, but it was reversed in this edit. Daniel Wing & Alan Scott say in The Bread Builders: Hearth Loaves and Masonry Ovens (page 8 & 9), emphasis added by me, What is especially nice about weighing ingredients by baker's percentage is that I don't have to measure out volume quantities, cup by cup. If I find my dough is too stiff, it is easy to add a little water. I can then plan to make a 66 percent hydration dough next time. If I want to make 18 kg of dough, or 3 kg of dough, I can do it easily, without having to divide quantities into half-cups, tablespoons, or whatever. I just refigure the percentages with my calculator. Since I placed the image, I obviously like it, and you just read a quote from a popular artisan baking book for it's use. What do you math folks think, is the calculator image appropriate in the article? Gzuufy (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that your image is off-topic. It's just a calculator, not even turned on. Do you propose to add that to every article that has a formula in it? Do you suppose that the readers are idiots who wouldn't guess how to calculate the formula without such an image? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To answer your first question, "No." It is an unusual tool to keep in a typical kitchen for cooking purposes. I have read portions of many cookbooks in my 50+ years, and have never seen a calculator presented as a tool typically used in a kitchen, but have seen a number of drawings or pictures of measuring cups and spoons presented in those same books along with other equipment. To answer your second question about idiocy, "No." On the other hand, I do believe ignorance is possible. Gzuufy (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with David. A giant image of a calculator takes up precious screen real estate without adding anything of value to the article.  (Although it is possible you might get a different reaction by asking a more relevant Wikiproject like something to do with cooking.)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears there's some consensus, with three folks believing it inappropriate. That's fine, I'm not going to shop around for the answer I want. Thanks for your answers! Gzuufy (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Terminology
I think that in general, Wikipedia math articles would benefit from having a short section about the terminology of the different symbols that are used, as many articles seem to lack some or much of that. For example, what is the variable that is written under the summation sign in a series called; is it the "summation variable"? Is there anything that can be done about this to increase the overall quality of math articles in this aspect? —Kri (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Should Lie theory be merged to Lie group
Hi all,

It seems there is a disagreement among editors as to whether Lie theory should be merged into Lie group. I'm in favor of merger as the former doesn't have much materials and the term is also somehow vague. For example, how much the representation theory of Lie groups a part of Lie theory? In any case, more inputs will help. -- Taku (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll respond here, because I see this as part of a larger issue. We have an article on Ring theory, although ring theory is merely the study of Ring (mathematics). We have an article on Group theory, although group theory is merely the study of Group (mathematics). And so on. These articles end up with strange divisions of labor, that I've never seen systematized or explained.


 * I'm not sure that Lie theory merits its own article, but it has at least as much merit as group theory or ring theory. I'm not even sure that Lie groups are the central object of the theory; maybe Lie algebras are. Mgnbar (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no merger. Lie theory is the framework inside which Lie groups, Lie algebras and more sits. It is fairly technical, so the Lie theory article should be an overview article with supporting detailed articles like Lie group, Closed subgroup theorem and Lie correspondence etc. YohanN7 (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, representation theory is not part of Lie theory, though it rests heavily on the Lie correspondence. YohanN7 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For a good overview of what Lie theory is (the main applications of today), see John M. Lee, Introduction to smooth manifolds (mostly ch. 20), Wulf Rossmann, Lie groups and Lie algebras: An introduction through linear groups (mostly ch. 2) or Brian C. Hall, Lie groups, Lie algebras and Representations (mostly ch 3). There is also more to it, like "local groups" and the study of differential equations. YohanN7 (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Lie theory might warrant a category of its own. I can think of some 15-20 (potentially new) articles in such a category. That would be a long-term project though. YohanN7 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This comment is a great example of my point. YohanN7 reasonably proposes that Lie theory give an overview, leaving the details to other articles. But Group theory explicitly states that it covers advanced notions (although it doesn't) and leaves the basics to Group (mathematics). That's what I meant by "strange divisions of labor, that I've never seen systematized". Mgnbar (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * "Group theory" is not a great article and its hatnote is probably a bit misleading or dated, but I can see that there is separate scope for a topic "Group theory" as distinct from "Group (mathematics)". Group theory is a huge area of mathematics.  "Group (mathematics)" concerns the basic notions and their applications, and "Group theory" gives a description of the area of mathematics and its basic subdivisions.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, is there any great "theory" article among math articles? I think the problem with these types of articles, as I alluded, is that the scope is not clear and most of times they seem to duplicate materials in more specialized articles. Also, from the quality assurance point of view, it is much more important to keep main articles such as Lie group and group (mathematics), as, presumably, the main articles as opposed to the theory articles are far more visible to the readers. (Of course, if some other editors want to work on them, I'm not going to interfere.) -- Taku (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with your observation about the current state of affairs, but should these deficiencies make us reorganize in an illogical way? Lie theory has more than enough mention (and definition of what it is) in the literature to warrant an article. I'd be utterly surprised if I was redirected to "Lie group" or "Lie whatever" if I typed "Lie theory" in the search box. A student about to chose courses may want to know a little about the general topic (often the name of the course or mentioned in the description). By the way, the essence of Lie theory (yes, I can source that statement) is captured in the article that you wrote YohanN7 (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think we should proceed the other way around. Sections 8, 9, and 10 in Lie group should be reduced to a minimum, the material could be distributed to Lie theory and the relevant specialized articles, e.g Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula. Our really important articles, of which Lie group is one, tend to be cluttered with stuff in attempts to be complete regarding the surrounding theory. They aren't clean, and much space is devoted to cover marginal topics that only a few personally involved mathematicians really care about. I think that out of 100 persons looking up Lie group, only 1 is interested in anything else than a fairly in-depth description of real or complex Lie groups, not paraphernalia. Who goes to Lie group to find out about "p-adic Lie groups"?
 * A related phenomenon is that whenever fields are involved, much space (and confusion for many uninitiated readers) is devoted to disclaimers about finite fields, especially of characteristic 2. Most or all of such stuff could be hidden under pop-ups. YohanN7 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The idea that we use the "theory" article to keep the main article (e.g., group - group theory, ring - ring theory) short or in reasonable length does make sense. This may even be the answer to Mgnbar's "strange subdivisions" (I too have always found the divisions strange and unclear.) But to me this is the argument "in favor of merger": Lie group isn't long enough to warrant distributions of materials to spin-off artciles. Meantime. the consensus seems clear (non-merger) for now. -- Taku (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think length by itself can be used to argue in one or the other direction. What I am looking for is a logical subdivision of the material. Old Sophus had no idea about what manifolds are, so he didn't know about Lie groups. Lie theory is both much more and much less than Lie groups.
 * I have, on the talk page, proposed material, pertaining to Lie groups in particular, that very much belongs in the article, but is missing. I have also raised the issue of differentiable versus analytic in our definition of Lie group. The latter issue may be worth a discussion. YohanN7 (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There is an important difference between whether a topic merits its own article and whether we should be working on the topic at all. The priority should be proportional to visibility to readers. Lie group and Lie algebra are pretty visible and the standards on them should be pretty high as well. In other words, if this is the goal, then it is easier for us not having Lie theory as a separate article. As for the division of materials, the article title Lie theory is not helpful since it's too vague. But I guess, in any case, what matters if there is some editor who wants to work on it. Building good materials is more important since we can always mess with organizations. -- Taku (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Cantor's first uncountability proof" is a "good article" nominee
I have nominated Cantor's first uncountability proof for "good article" status. The article in its present form was written mostly by Robert J. Gray, a historian of mathematics who has published on this and related topics in refereed journals. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Natural number
A new editor is insisting on major changes to the lead of natural number without waiting for consensus. Please take a look. --Trovatore (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This needs the attention of experienced editors before the situation gets out of hand. There is a bit of an invasion there by a few IP's.  One of them is currently attacking an established editor with vicious threats on his talkpage.  The issue seems to be whether the term "counting number" should be included on par with "natural number" and "whole number" in the lede.  It seems that "counting number" is a primary school term that is not in common usage among people likely to use wiki, but the IP's insist on retaining it.  Tkuvho (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is now a conflict resolution entry for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#natural_numbers Experienced editors are invited to contribute. Tkuvho (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The current discussion at Talk:Natural_number could benefit from the attention of our resident logicians and set theorists. Tkuvho (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not one of these, :-) but I did participate a little, anyway. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hilbert–Bernays paradox" is an orphan
Currently no articles link to Hilbert–Bernays paradox. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Vera de Spinadel and metallic means
Is Vera de Spinadel a notable academic? Her work appears to be primarily on the metallic means, an article that is also on AfD. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have nominated Vera de Spinadel for deletion, here.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for help copyediting Heart_valve
Hello Mathematics editors! I come from the far-off Wikiland of WP:ANATOMY and humbly beseech any kind editors here to fix the wikicode used to represent some formulas on this article: Heart_valve. Any additional thoughts or comments or edits to the article are also welcome. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

sockpuppet investigations of long-standing project participants
I would much appreciate if someone could take a look at this and comment. Tkuvho (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, someone needs to step up and just indef Carmella1. That would solve the problem.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This concerns the infamous two envelope problem. Great fun, lots of confusion. Badly needs some sensible mathematicians to look at it. Richard Gill (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately User:Caramella1 has continued harassing fellow editors, as in this edit. Tkuvho (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I started an ANI thread here.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hat at number
Does Number need a fancier hat? Tkuvho (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Tkuvho post is about this edit, and another similar edit by the same editor. D.Lazard (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)