Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2016/Jun

Garden of Eden (cellular automaton)
I'm having a disagreement with an anonymous editor over the preferred level of technicality and redundancy in the lead section and lead sentence of Garden of Eden (cellular automaton). Third opinions welcome; see article history for alternative versions and Talk:Garden of Eden (cellular automaton) for discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to take part in this, but I've found your (Eppstein's) favorite version much better. The other one is just too hard even for mathematics students, imagine for laymen to understand... 189.6.194.219 (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This has now progressed to an RfC. --JBL (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

pertinence of the article Gonit Sora
I wonder about the pertinence of the following article: Gonit Sora. I just removed a link which didn't add something to Évariste Galois. I wonder if it is not kind of spam. Xavier Combelle (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

"established"?
The article titled Durand–Kerner method begins like this: In numerical analysis, the Durand–Kerner method, established 1960–66 and named after E. Durand and Immo Kerner, also called the method of Weierstrass, established 1859–91 and named after Karl Weierstrass, is a root-finding algorithm for solving polynomial equations. In other words, the method can be used to solve numerically the equation


 * ƒ(x) = 0

where ƒ is a given polynomial, which can be taken to be scaled so that the leading coefficient is 1. What in the world does "established" mean? The method was "established 1960–66", but when known by a different name it was "established 1859–91. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO, "established" means here "introduced". In French, "etablir" (French word for "to establish") is sometimes used for "to prove". D.Lazard (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But why was it introduced at different times when known (today) by different names? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This language is definitely confusing: established often means 'proved,' but that substitution makes the lead confusing - why did it take 30 years to 'establish' it the first time, and why was it 'established' again several decades later? Also, one does not generally prove a method (although one might prove that it works), as far as I know. Someone who actually knows something about this method should check this out. Nat2 (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I found a book by Petkovic that clarifies the history. The method was discovered by Weierstrass and rediscovered independently by Durand and Kerner. I've updated the lead with the information. --Mark viking (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

MathML now the default
The move to make the client side SVG rendering the default is now live on the English Wikipedia. This is task billed as "MathML now the default" but I don't think MathML is actually used even on firefox.

I'm currently getting lots of bugs when editing. The only way I can resolve these is to switch my preference to PNG mode save my preferences. Then you can switch the preference back to "MathML with SVG or PNG fallback" mode and things work fine again.--Salix alba (talk): 21:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks good. Have they fixed the Firefox incompatibility?  Or was that smuggled into a Firefox update?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * MathML is a slight misnomer. The MathML is still embedded in each page, but is not actually displayed. What you're really seeing is server-side rendered SVG (on Firefox, at least). Previously you did get real (but broken) MathML on Firefox. SVG seems to be an improvement in some respects (math scales better with the rest of the text compared to PNG) and a regression in others (font weight is a bit too heavy for my taste). —Ruud 22:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * We $$\it have$$ working $$\bf baselines$$!!!!! Hooray!!!!!  $$\bf Years \rm\ of $$ waiting and $$\it our\ \bf wish$$ has been $$\bf granted!!!!!$$ Many thanks $$\rm to$$ everyone $$\it who$$ made this $$a\ \mathit reality!!!!!$$ Ozob (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your enthusiasm, but your prose has four Failed to parse errors in my browser :-) Windows 10, latest Chrome, PNG images mode. --Mark viking (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still not the case that $$\text{text inside math templates}$$ matches article text in font, font size, or crispness. Also for me the &lt;math&gt;\it baselines are lower than the other fonts. But it is at least an improvement over the bitmaps. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be a cache error, per the bug in question. :) --Izno (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Copying and pasting:
 * We \it have working Failed to parse (syntax error): \bf baselines !!!!! Hooray!!!!! Failed to parse (syntax error): \bf Years \rm\ of waiting and Failed to parse (syntax error): \it our\ \bf wish has been Failed to parse (syntax error): \bf granted!!!!! Many thanks \rm to everyone \it who made this a\ \mathit reality!!!!!
 * Michael Hardy (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

If anyone using Firefox wants to get real MathML back again you can reenable the MathML with a bit of CSS Add this to your Special:MyPage/vector.css and the MathML will reappear.--Salix alba (talk): 16:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Having just gone through this, a better and easier fix is to install two Firefox extensions: Native MathML and MathML-fonts. Better because it also gives you fonts that will improve the appearance, and it works on all sites, not just WP. The Native MathML extension is a bit of a misnomer. It does not implement MathML, just convinces Firefox to use it when it's available.


 * Although the appearance is much improved, the new behavior is a bit of a regression, as you now have to install stuff to get good looking math. We don't seem to have much control over this situation. I do think the documentation could be improved. If you click on "Help" in the WP preferences page, it takes you to this Mediawiki help page, which is not very helpful. It talks about Extension:Math, which will only confuse WP users because it's a server side extension that casual users have no control over. Only by clicking on that link will the user finally be taken to Extension:Math, where they can learn they are "required to install the Native MathML extension and math fonts."


 * If anyone is in a position to improve the documentation, I think that would be a good thing. Better yet would be if browser display of math would just work without users having to do anything. I don't consider fallback svg acceptable, but maybe that's just me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there is a case for a MathML option which actually displays the MathML. It worth bringing this up at . --Salix alba (talk): 15:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Flaw in Euclidean algorithm graphic
Algorithm This graphic shows 650 subtracted from 1599 twice to leave a remainder of 299. It does not show 299 subtracted twice from 650 to get 52. It shows 52 subtracted five times from 299 to get 39. It does not show 39 subtracted from 52 to get 13. Shouldn't those omissions be remedied?

Michael Hardy (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have recommendations for good tools to produce this sort of graphic? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Gimp can do this; frames are layers.. Or if you prefer a CLI, gifsicle can paste a list of gifs together into an animated gif. --Mark viking (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Index of The Educational Times
Is there one? I see a few scattered refs pointing to various math questions posed in this journal (and the companion/offshoot Mathematical Questions with Their Solutions). The latest information I can find is a 1992 article about these journals (10.1016/0315-0860(92)90057-I) saying there was at most an index published within a few certain volumes. DMacks (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know about an index, but most of the individual issues can be browsed at http://ioearc.da.ulcc.ac.uk/view/organisations/edtimes.html
 * The Internet Archive also has quite a lot of the spin-off series, "Mathematical Questions": https://archive.org/search.php?query=mathematical+questions&page=1
 * As the paper by Ivor Grattan-Guinness that you cited says, in all there were some 20,000 pages published, devoted to 19,000 problems; there was apparently no index as of 1992. Jheald (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This 2003 paper gives a bit more on the background to the journal ; this UCL page gives a bit more about the institution behind it, the intriguingly named College of Preceptors. According to this archive catalogue entry from the IoE, the "majority of the volumes are indexed" -- though I haven't looked to see to what level of informativeness. Jheald (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Egomath
An article of possible interest to others here--Egomath, a mathematical search engine for Wikipedia--has been proposed for deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Milne-Thompson method for finding an analytic function
If anyone knows anything about the Milne-Thompson method for finding an analytic function, such as (1) whether the article ought to exist, or (2) what more it should say, or (3) references to cite, etc., then there it is. (I found it badly in need of copy-editing and did some of that, but probably more of that can be done.) Note: "Milne-Thompson" is a hyphenated name of one person, _not_ two names; hence it is properly a hyphen rather than an en-dash. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know the answers to your questions, but it's about holomorphic functions, not analytic ones, so I changed the title to Milne-Thompson method for finding a holomorphic function. Ozob (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems that the correct spelling of the name is "Milne-Thomson", with no p, so I've moved the page (again) to Milne-Thomson method for finding a holomorphic function. Ozob (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There should be no problem in finding secondary sources. The name the thing seems to be actually used for it. (If Google finds it, then it must be notable, right?) YohanN7 (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Mathbot is going to break
User:Mathbot is going to break soon, because of changes to the API. The bot owner doesn't seem to edit very often. If anyone is interested in this, please see the latest discussion at WP:BOTN. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oleg claims that he just fixed it (time will tell). See User talk:Oleg Alexandrov. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Does the word "perfect", in the phrase "perfect sphere", mean anything?
insists on replacing "sphere" by "perfect sphere" in the mathematics article spheroid. My position is that this is meaningless verbosity, like talking about "wet water". Please discuss at Talk:Spheroid if you have an opinion on this. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is what I wrote on his talk page:


 * hi. I don't like genuine redundancy either, but frankly you're just plain wrong with your comparisons of "wet water" and other things to the phrase "perfectly spherical".   Astronomers and degreed people themselves have used that phrase.   People who would never say the phrase "wet water".   Not all spheres are necessarily perfect, is the point.   What's the problem here??     And as I said, other WP articles have used that phrasing, as well as outside Reliable Sources.   From another Wikipedia article that I had nothing to do with, these exact words:


 * "The Earth is not perfectly spherical but an oblate spheroid, so the length of a minute of latitude increases by 1% from the equator to the poles. Using the WGS84 ellipsoid, the commonly accepted Earth model for many purposes today, one minute of latitude at the WGS84 equator is 6,046 feet and at the poles is 6,107.5 feet. The average is about 6,076 feet (about 1,852 metres or 1.15 statute miles)."


 * And from an article on physics.stackexchange.com, these words:


 * "By this measure, the Sun is a near-perfect sphere with an oblateness estimated at about 9 millionths, which means that its polar diameter differs from its equatorial diameter by only 10 kilometres (6.2 mi)."


 * Are these scientists being "redundantly redundant" as you put it?  Or do you see them saying "wet water"?    (And that's just some examples; there are a lot more.)  You accused me of "edit-warring" for simply not putting up with rude unwarranted reverts, for excuses that simply don't hold up, and keeping to 3RR.  (One of my comments on the page was just an edit comment with no real edit...so I kept right at 3RR, and won't cross that.)   YOU are edit-warring by imposing and removing a valid mod (provably valid mod), and clarity, that is NOT really "redundant"...as I kind of just proved with just a sample of places that rightly use the phrase that you have an issue against.    The edit and qualifier was for clarity and is correct and used phrasing, and does not qualify for abrupt removal on the grounds of "redundant".   That might be true if all "spheres" were considered always "perfect".   Apparently not all of them are. Redzemp (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * end of statement...
 * It's clear that to compare "perfectly spherical" or 'perfect sphere' with the phrase "wet water" is simply wrong and ignorant, and counter-factual...and not applicable. The phrase in question is not "spherical sphere" (THAT would be "redundant") but rather the phrase that you keep removing is "perfectly spherical" or "perfect sphere", and sorry, that simply is not redundant...as sources etc prove.  Not all spheres are necessarily "perfect" is the obvious and the stated and referenced point.   Redzemp (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * While this discussion should be on Talk:Spheroid perhaps placing it here will generate a greater response and may point to a larger issue that is of interest to the project. First of all, a sphere is a sphere is a sphere. A non-perfect sphere is not a sphere, so the adjective is mathematically redundant. However, to the general populace, the term sphere may refer to anything that is almost spherical (technically a spheroid) and for those who incorporate this fudge factor in their terminology, a perfect sphere distinguishes a mathematical sphere from the misnamed spheroids. The issue, as I see it, is whether or not a page that is devoted to the mathematical presentation should strictly use mathematical terminology even though the audience may not appreciate the mathematical nuances. I see the current (endless) discussion going on at Talk:Area of a disk as being essentially the same issue in a slightly different context. As an editor with a mathematical background, I do see, in myself, a definite bias towards precise, correct mathematical terminology ... but I do see this as a bias and feel that in some articles I should loosen up and not try to be as exact as I normally would desire to be. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Bill.  And this is what I wrote on David's talk page where we were having a discussion regarding this, about this "mathematics article" argument, right below:


 * In "mathematics" or any other context, would you call the sun a "sphere" then?  Even if it's not "perfect"?   Would you call the earth a "sphere" even though it's not a perfect sphere?  The sun and earth are both spheres, though "near perfect" or "not perfect".   Why are they called "sphere" even if not 100% "perfect" in absolute circularity in every part?    Yes we call the earth a "spherOID" but isn't the earth also called a sphere too?    Maybe not in strict mathematics, I guess is your point.  My point is that even you'd have to admit that the phrase "spherical sphere" is WAY MORE "redundant" than "perfectly spherical" or "perfect sphere".    Remember, Wikipedia is NOT JUST for technical experts and semantical types, but also for average readers who may need elaboration and clarity.   Again, OTHER Wikipedia articles dealing with distances etc, regarding the earth, say phrases like "perfectly spherical" etc...    And so do some outside sources...written by degreed scientists.   My point is that the phrase "perfectly spherical" is PROVABLY NOT the same as "wet water", as you were saying, with that comparison.   The phrase "spherical sphere" would be more comparable to "wet water".   As both those phrases are truly redundant and needless.   Redzemp (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * and also...


 * Here's the problem. I disagree with you in thinking that this article is strictly narrowly just a "mathematics article" in every single line or paragraph.   And the context of the immediate paragraph and sentences in here were dealing with astronomy matters, the planet earth.   (Even that means what, since isn't the whole universe mathematical in various ways anyway?)   You say that this article is not about "astronomy".    (As if astronomy has no math in it, which we all know that that's not true).   But even so, how can you say that the Spheroid article is ONLY a "mathematics article" in every single line, sentence, or paragraph... when a paragraph about the PLANET EARTH (an astronomical thing) is in the article, etc?    And also "gravity".  Which also includes physics.    All are connected.     Such as:  "Because of the combined effects of gravity and rotation, the Earth's shape is not quite a perfect sphere but instead is slightly flattened in the direction of its axis of rotation. For that reason, in cartography the Earth is often approximated by an oblate spheroid instead of a sphere. The current World Geodetic System model uses a spheroid whose radius is 6,378.137 km at the equator and 6,356.752 km at the poles."    (And sorry, the sun and earth are "spheres" broadly, and are called that by scientists, when not being so overly-technical, and use the phrase "near perfect sphere" or "not a perfect sphere" etc.   Both the sun and earth (and the moon too) are circular objects, even if not perfectly so on every side necessarily.   Why does the word "spheroid" have the very word "sphere" in it?   But anyway, you see the paragraph's wording dealing with astronomy matters.   So even if this article is maybe mainly a "mathematics article", it's not 100% strictly just that.   At least not totally in this paragraph in question.  Redzemp (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The "earth" paragraph in the "Spheroid" article is obviously not strictly a "mathematics article" point and drift there.  And even if mathematically a "sphere" is always perfect, in other aspects, in broad usage, not necessarily, all the time.  Regards. Redzemp (talk) 15:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Even in mathematics, we sometimes distinguish topological spheres from the round sphere. I have no opinion on whether "perfect sphere" is an appropriate neologism.   S ławomir  Biały  15:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Families of polynomials
I've found a number of very brief articles on families of polynomials and probably a few more. They are all very brief, barely more than just references, and don't even have a definitions instead they have empty formulas which are causing parsing error. I'm not sure if they are notable enough and I've prodded the first. --Salix alba (talk): 16:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Dual q-Hahn polynomials
 * Affine q-Krawtchouk polynomials
 * Quantum q-Krawtchouk polynomials
 * Q-Meixner polynomials
 * Q-Meixner–Pollaczek polynomials
 * Continuous dual q-Hahn polynomials
 * Continuous big q-Hermite polynomials
 * Q-Krawtchouk polynomials
 * Continuous q-Hermite polynomials


 * Some of these certainly deserve articles, and the current versions are not exactly worthless (they do have lists of references, after all), but also obviously they are not acceptable in their current form. --JBL (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this class of articles was created by for orthogonal polynomials in the hypergeometric Askey scheme of classification. They all have the same set of general references, which are sufficient for verifiability. One approach would be to stubify these by removing the empty sections and possibly the animated plots. In some cases, we'd be left with a short description and references for more information--still useful for our readers. Another approach might be to merge members of each O.P. family together, for instance, Continuous dual Hahn, Continuous Hahn, Hahn, dual Hahn, Continuous dual q-Hahn, Continuous q-Hahn, q-Hahn, and  dual q-Hahn into one conglomerate Hahn article. Stubify is the quick solution, perhaps with merges later. --Mark viking (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

There is now an AFD on the subject Articles for deletion/Dual q-Hahn polynomials (2nd nomination).--Salix alba (talk): 15:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * How about an aggregation article called Families of polynomials, which would doubly serve as a chart of the classification hierarchy? Most of these articles are an equation, a classification, a who-and-when, and a reference. Still images can stay, while animations can be linked into a commons gallery. Famous polynomials can have similarly short blurbs while linking to the main article. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Lebesgue integral
There is some discussion at Talk:Integral on whether the standard intuitive idea that the Lebesgue integral proceeds by "partitioning the range" of a function is indeed correct and helpful to the reader. I am unclear what the specific objection to this content is, but I think it would benefit from a third opinion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Divisions of mathematics
In the Template:Areas of mathematics, the "Divisions" are listed as: Pure, Applied, Discrete, Computational, Meta-, and Recreational. I am not sure this is helpful or accurate. For instance, it elevates Recreational mathematics to one of 6 presumptively equal divisions of the whole field of mathematics–an interesting but possibly unbalanced characterization. Below is WP's assessment of the six associated "division summary" articles along with my comments.

I would eventually like to bring a little more consistency to all of these articles. Are they really a fair overview of all of mathematics? I am not qualified to say. I had a brief discussion about all this with WP editor and mathematician Bill Cherowitzo who said:


 * One problem with these divisions of mathematics is that they do not form a partition of the field. For example, I am a pure mathematician, doing discrete mathematics with some very computationally intense periods in my work, and (formerly) in an applied math department. Some of my work could be considered to be recreational, or at least that is the way I present it to non-mathematicians and I definitely think that meta-mathematics is a branch of logic and has nothing to do with mathematics. I look at these divisions ... and laugh!


 * What makes something a mathematical recreation versus a serious mathematical topic is pretty much a matter of taste. For instance, J.J. Seidel contributed a chapter on combinatorial designs to W.W. Rouse Ball's Mathematical Recreations and Essays, but I've spent most of my career seriously studying these things. Latin squares at the level of Sudoku and Ken-Ken are clearly recreational, but the existence of sets of mutually orthogonal ones quickly turns into cutting edge mathematical research. Where do you draw the line?

I am particularly interested in improving the article Recreational mathematics and would welcome some collaboration.--Toploftical (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've been complaining about a similar problem at Talk:Mathematics for years. The problem, as Bill Cherowitzo points out, is that these categorizations are cultural and social, not formal or technical. They're messy. They overlap and underlap. It's hard to get agreement about which obviously-defective categorization is to be preferred over the others. Mgnbar (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly; that's why we should strain to avoid implying that any of these characterizations is to be taken too seriously. I worry that putting them into templates and categories has the danger of implying that they should be taken more seriously than they actually deserve. --Trovatore (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, my obviously defective, but surprisingly accurate, rule of thumb for what constitutes "recreational mathematics" is "anything that depends on a choice of radix". Certainly, it doesn't capture everything (flexahexagons don't depend on a choice of radix but seem like recreational math), and I wouldn't want to declare once and for all that something depending on a choice of radix must be recreational math.  Still, it does a pretty good job. --Trovatore (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, it excludes normal numbers. Besides their interest in number theory (an interest which I agree tends towards recreational) they have connections to probability and theoretical computer science. See normal number. Ozob (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Normal numbers don't depend on a choice of radix. --Trovatore (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a theorem of Schmidt, cited in the article, that if r and s are such that $r^{n} ≠ s^{m}$ for any integer n and m, then there is a continuum of numbers normal in base r which are not normal in base s. Ozob (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That quantifies over all possible radices, and therefore does not involve the choice of a radix. --Trovatore (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * r and s are fixed; there is no quantification over radixes. So, for example, the theorem says there are a continuum of numbers normal in base 10 which are not normal in base 2. Ozob (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I admit my language was not as precise as it could have been, but do you really not understand what I mean? r and s are "fixed", but the theorem quantifies over them.  There is no particular base being singled out here.
 * Recreational math, on the other hand, is often specific to base 10. Or occasionally to base 12, or some other particular base.  That is what triggers my rule of thumb. --Trovatore (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I really did not understand what you meant. Schmidt's theorem, more formally, is $$r \in \mathbf{Z}_+ \land s \in \mathbf{Z}_+ \land \lnot(\exists n\exists m\,r^n = s^m) \Rightarrow \exists S \subseteq [0, 1] ...$$, where the omitted part expresses the fact that S has the cardinality of the continuum and that numbers in S are normal with respect to r but not s. No quantification over r or s is necessary in this statement, whence our misunderstanding.  Nevertheless, I believe I grasp your meaning now.  Ozob (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an implicit $$\forall r \forall s$$ in front of that statement, which is the quantification over r and s to which I referred. Anyway I'm glad we understand each other now. --Trovatore (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For another example of base-specific but serious mathematics, see Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe formula. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is at least arguably an exception. --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I propose that the so-called six divisions of mathematics in the Template:Areas of mathematics simply be removed. What purpose do they serve?  Moreover, the "divisions" characterization suggests that they are the 6 nodes of a tree of further subdivisions.  But no such further branching occurs on the associated summary pages.  I totally agree with Cherowitzo that meta-mathematics is a branch of logic.  And I would simply demote recreational mathematics to one of the "areas" of math.  How to characterize Pure and Applied math is harder to say.--18:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not clear why being a branch of logic should exclude also being a branch of mathematics.
 * That said, I'm not necessarily opposed to removing the divisions, or indeed the whole template. But if the "areas" are thought to be useful, then the "divisions" are arguably useful with the similar rationale. --Trovatore (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (If the "divisions" are kept, I would propose replacing "metamathematics" by "mathematical logic", which is a more general area of study, clearly part of mathematics, and not otherwise clearly represented in any of the other divisions.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Oh, except that I suppose it's part of "pure". Right, I hadn't really noticed that &mdash; the "pure" and "applied" parts are really kind of a different level of categorization than the other four; "pure" and "applied" pretty much subsumes all of mathematics, albeit with overlap.  That is a different kettle of fish.  Maybe the best solution is indeed to remove the "divisions" (or, again, the whole template). --Trovatore (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Everybody should have a look at Template talk:Areas of mathematics. There are some good suggestions there. Other people have been troubled by the current contents of the template. As a temporary experiment, I am going to demote Recreational Mathematics to one of the "areas". Whatever it is, it is not one of the major divisions of math.--Toploftical (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the 2010 proposal by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (who has been banned) is better than the current revision, since at least it provides some backbone for navigation. However, this template is inherently problematic, since it is not based on any reasonably verifiable division of the mathematical sciences.  If we are to insist on having a navigation template at all, then it should be based on a clear division of mathematics, such as the Mathematics Subject Classification.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, with one proviso: It is easy to find a verifiable division of the mathematical sciences. All we need is a published source that attempts to partition all of mathematics in some way.  The MSC does this, as do the ICM program and the Library of Congress subject catalog.  The problem for us is that, as mathematicians, we're used to proof; but an organizational question like this one is more akin to library science.  Asking for the classification to be correct is asking the wrong question.  We should ask for it to be useful.  Ozob (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Toploftical here: I completely agree with User:Ozob


 * By ICM I assume you mean the International Congress of Mathematicians. Can someone provide a link to their classification system?   (For the Kiefer.Wolfowitz proposals see here.)   I strongly feel that somebody should reorganize things along the lines they suggest. Meanwhile I will simply list a few anomalies I have noticed to emphasize how the whole math template system is not very well though out.
 * There are templates for Algebra (but not Geometry), Calculus (but not Analysis), Number theory, Functional analysis, Game theory, Tensors (but not Linear algebra), Computer science, Statistics, Set theory, and Topology–and none of the other "areas". It all seems a bit ad hoc.
 * The article Areas of mathematics has almost nothing in common with the Template:Areas of mathematics and the template Areas of mathematics has little in common with the article Mathematics Subject Classification. Then there is the independent Lists of mathematics topics.
 * Shouldn't Boolean algebra be included in either the template Areas of mathematics or template Algebra?
 * Areas of mathematics does not mention Category theory (oh, I now notice that it is in the Algebra template).
 * If somebody wants to take on the daunting task of reorganizing the templates along the lines Ozob suggests, I will support them and even do some of the work.--Toploftical (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * For the ICM program structure, see . Ozob (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Re the earlier question about how to categorize recreational mathematics: although I doubt there is much ICM activity on this topic, it seems to fit well under "19. Mathematics education and popularization of mathematics". I don't see where order theory fits, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Pages with math errors
There now a new tracking category Category:Pages with math errors which list all pages which have a mathematical syntax error in their formula. It might be worth having an occasional glance at. I think this relates to. For many pages the errors can be fixed by simply doing a WP:PURGE on the page. --Salix alba (talk): 21:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merely saying that there is a mathematics error on a page without being more specific about where on the page (which formula) is not likely to be very helpful. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify this lists pages when the tag failed to parse due to syntax errors, rather than equations which wrong. They are generally pretty easy to find as soon as you look at the page, with large red error messages.--Salix alba (talk): 21:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems to be 292576 from T134872. Oliv0 (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Adrian Dudek
SPA has been adding references to Adrian Dudek to various number theory articles. These appear to be primary sources, rather than secondary sources, and some are self-published (on arxiv). Are any worth keeping? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've removed all the references, but feel free to restore any if you think they're appropriate. Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Universal trinity
A new article titled Universal trinity bears the "mathematical logic" category tag. It looks like either an attempt to do theology via mathematical logic or a use of mathematical logic as a metaphor in theology. I suspect it constitutes "original research" as defined by WP:OR. I have proposed its deletion and notified its creator. If the creator of the article deletes the "prod" tag, I'll take it to AfD unless someone beats me to it. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I just added an additional source which fully clarifies the triplicities between the branches in the 12 positions, but this was already pretty clear due to the listed Category:Astrological triplicities? Are the listed sources about a very basic and universal view to the trinity or is rather this view itself not ok for you? --MathLine (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Not only are religion and astrology both absurd, but most Christians regard astrology as false and sinful. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue is that the article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. The article appears to be original research, and original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Even if it is not original research, the article is written improperly.  It does not seem to have appropriate citations to reliable sources, and it may not adhere to a neutral point of view.  You might want to model your article on the astrology article.  Ozob (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually there is no statement in this article which fundamentally lacks sources and to reproach even personal bias in a so general disquisition is absurd. Even mathematicians who worked their whole lifes only within plain mathematics keep a sense of Category:Philosophy of mathematics which makes clear that there are other reasons for your tunnel view here! MathLine (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree, the article should be deleted. The sources for the first sentence are an entire book, without a specific page number, and a website which does not mention conjectures, etc.  That first sentence is not an anomaly: most of the sources do not directly support the content.  The article is obvious, unsalvageable WP:OR.  I strongly suspect it is entirely a WP:HOAX, and potentially speediable for that reason.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The article has been deleted as a blatant hoax.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * At least the term "Universal trinity" is used also in further sources like http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting/trinity.html, http://dharmarepublic.com/trisula/ so if the listed sources have been so extremely imprecise then maybe we could abide the determined 7 day discussion time to correct them? A move into my namespace for that purpose was also not considered? MathLine (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand what type of sources are needed here for this article (but also in general) are scholarly articles in science journals, books by established academics (with page numbers) and websites of established mathematicians, at math or science institutes, MacTutor or Mathworld. So far almost all sources used or suggested including the two you've just mentioned fail that standard. As long as we do not have at least some sources of that type, there is no place in WP for such an article. There is no point in moving it into your namespace as long as that type of source is not available (at all).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Read WP:BIASED and learn that of course not only directly university related sources are acceptable!! The mentioned source from wisdomworld.org refers to the in theosophy appreciated source THEOSOPHY, Vol. 45, No. 7 and its headline (!) is "THE UNIVERSAL TRINITY". If you have a problem with the listed Category:Mathematical logic then that LINE could be deleted. Besides this WikiProject Mathematics I also involved Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology (before its deletion) and apparently it seems also necessary with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theology which seems to cover also theosophy but for that it should be at least restored in the namespace, right? --MathLine (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The juxtaposition of words "universal trinity" appears in that source, but it does not correspond to the article that you wrote. If you want to write an article based on secondary sources, then nothing is stopping you from doing that. That article may or may not be deleted, depending on whether it conforms to our policies and guidelines. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The universal trinity in that source is the principle of formation which is explained as the origin of every form (like calculation which is the origin of every calculation result) the principle of perception as intelligence (which is exactly that what someone needs to build proofs) and the principle of choice from beings (who of course have to make individual decisions involving circumstances that are not fully understood exactly like unsolved conjectures which are also not fully understood). These parallelisms of meaning are obvious here and they are common in theosophic discourse, but not in mathematics, so please restore the article in my namespace so that such theosophic parallelisms can be completed with proper sources. MathLine (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds like original research to me. As I said, if you want to write an article based on sources, no one is stopping you.  That article may or may not be deleted based on whether it conforms to policies.  But this latest post does not really convince me that you understand why your original article was deleted.  If we are in for more of the same, then this is not really a constructive use of anyone's time.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You should look into Requests for undeletion. Ozob (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources
Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Characteristic equation
There are four articles that link to the WP:DAB page characteristic equation, and I suspect that only this project's participants will be able to correctly disambiguate them. The four articles are: Disambiguation has been needed for two and a half years. Would anyone here like to tackle these? We at WP:DPL would be most grateful. — Gorthian (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Angle condition
 * Canonical analysis
 * Closed-loop pole
 * Magnitude condition


 * These four articles have been created by the same user. All have multiple issues (even is the template multiple issues has not been added to all). Clearly, "characteristic equation" does not refer to any of the meanings listed in Characteristic equation, and the disambiguation cannot been done without cleaning up the whole articles. D.Lazard (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah. I wondered why they'd languished so long. If you agree, I think I'll just unlink that term in each one.


 * On a somewhat separate issue, is the dab page okay as it is? Besides matters of style, I mean: the definitions, completeness, etc. Or is it really a broader topic instead of several specific definitions? — Gorthian (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC) (Pinging, as I should have done in my reply. — Gorthian (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have expanded Characteristic equation. There are probably other uses of "characteristic" and "characteristic equation" in mathematics, but I have not them in mind. This cannot be the subject of a broad-concept article, as "characteristic" is generally used in mathematics to denote a tool (usually simpler) used to solve a problem or classify its solutions. There are thus no relation between the various technical meanings of the word. By the way, after having read Control theory, it seems that, in this four articles, "characteristic equation" refers to the equation associated to the characteristic polynomial of a matrix. However, the articles are very confusing, and disambiguating the link is of no help for understanding the articles. D.Lazard (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding characteristic polynomial. I am going to simply unlink the term in those four articles; whoever decides to untangle them can deal with linking at that time. Thank you for your help! — Gorthian (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Continuum expression of the first law of thermodynamics
I'm having a disagreement with an editor over the new article continuum expression of the first law of thermodynamics. This seems like a reasonable equation to have covered somewhere on Wikipedia. I've checked the citation. An editor with apparently no knowledge of the subject, and also apparently someone unable to give a clear reason, is insistently replacing this new article with a redirect to first law of thermodynamics, where the expression in continuum mechanics is not given. I'm hardly an expert on continuum mechanics, but this does seem like something worth having an article on, and a stub seems like a good start. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It is now at AfD.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)