Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2016/Sep

Wikiproject Template discussion
There is a proposal at Templates for Discussion about the math project's talk page assessment templates - the ones that are used for quality and priority assessment. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 11:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The template has been relisted for further discussion. See Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_31.  Ozob (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Polygon
This is currently the lead image and caption on the polygon article. As someone who last took geometry over 15 years ago, I'm not sure what a better caption (or image) would be, but (a) The wording is awkward and I'm not sure if the labels are even correct. "Open (excluding it's boundary)" presumably refers to the first image on the left. I thought an open polygon was one that's missing a side. Why would we exclude its boundary? Why would we exclude the interior of the second image? "Closed (both)"... Both what? "self-intersecting with varying densities of different regions" Huh? (b) Even if those examples are correct, are they the best ones to use in the lead image? I also posted something similar and brought up some other concerns about the wording in the lead on the article's talkpage, but I'm looking for more input from this project as the talkpage doesn't get too much action. —PermStrump ( talk )  02:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The answer to "both what" seems clear: both the interior and the boundary. And "open" in this case seems clearly intended to mean that it's it's an open set. As for "one side missing", I've seen the term "polygonal path" used for that, but if the path doesn't return to where it started, then calling it a "polygon" is not something I've seen before.  And actually, this set of definitions is not something I've seen before, although their meaning seems clear. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Dab pages need checking
I just finished reformatting two mathdab pages: torsion-free and parabolic geometry. I understand the formatting, but not the math involved. I did the best I could with descriptions from the linked articles, but I know some of it isn't right. In particular, I think parabolic geometry (differential geometry) and Cartan parabolic geometry may have a lot of overlap, or might even be identical. Could someone please check those pages and straighten out the descriptions? Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm hoping a couple more people will look, too. — Gorthian (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Chinese remainder theorem
If you have time then please could you have a look at my recent edit to the Chinese remainder theorem article. It was reverted by a Twinkle user because "Unsourced, and the general description of the method is lacking". I added a reference and think the description is quite detailed, so reverted. This has again been reverted. Naturally, I think my edit is fine, but I would like a second opinion. Please see the article's talk page as well. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  19:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One thing plainly wrong with the new section is that it says "Algebraic Method" with a capital "M" rather than "Algebraic method" with a lower-case "m". Michael Hardy (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Luc Illusie
Hello ! The biography of Luc Illusie (a French mathematician) contained several factual errors, which I corrected directly, while adding new information. But there is a paragraph which I had corrected and which has been re-entered : I think it is at the least very misleading (and not relevant), at the worst almost libellous. At the suggestion of the author of those problematic lines, I explained the problems in this paragraph at length, with references, in the Talk page, Talk:Luc Illusie, but apparently with no success. It would be nice if some of you with good mathematical background (Illusie is an algebraic geometer) can have a look on this discussion and give an opinion. I contributed usually on the French Wikipedia mostly for linguistic reasons. Thank you in advance. Cgolds (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Martin boundary
We have no article titled Martin boundary. Is there someone adept in writing about that? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an (incomplete and maybe not so well-written) account of the Martin boundary in the page on the Poisson boundary, which could be a start for writing a new page. In case no one wants to do this in the near future a redirect could be a temporary solution. jraimbau (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've created the redirect and labeled it as being "with possibilities". Michael Hardy (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Dictionary definition of "exponent".
We are having a discussion at wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion as to whether the existing definitions of the term are overlapping, redundant, or generally correct at all. For reference, we have three mathematical definitions of the word:


 * 1) The power to which a number, symbol or expression is to be raised, for example, the $$3$$ in $$b^3=p$$.
 * 2) The result of a logarithm, between a base and an antilogarithm, for example, the $$4$$ in $$\log_b(a)=4$$.
 * 3) (obsolete) The degree to which the root of a radicand is found, for example, the $$2$$ in $$\sqrt[2]r=b$$.

The primary question is whether the second sense is redundant to the first. Expert insight would be helpful and appreciated here. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * See http://www.onelook.com/?w=exponent. —Wavelength (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a logical biconditional relationship between $$b^3=p$$ and $$\log_b(p)=3$$, two equations which describe the same relationship in different ways, so they can be called redundant. However, they are different enough that mentioning both of them is informative to a reader who might not easily notice that both of them exist.  I prefer that all three definitions cited be included.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. --JBL (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree (I'm chiming in to show consensus fwiw). SamuelRiv (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring with User:Pigsonthewing
I unfortunately find myself edit-warring with User:Pigsonthewing, who has been making a number of damaging edits to templates that concern this project. Earlier, he broke Template:nlab and won't let me fix it; Now, he's broken Template:Planetmath reference, with the result that it displays complete garbage. I've reverted, but I don't imagine that this will stick for long. I'm at a loss -- I've seen this kind of hostile behavior in WP far too many times, and I don't understand it's origins. I don't know how to fix it. Anyone? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In terms of the template I would create Template:Nlab/testcases where you can give an example of the templates use and compare it with a Template:Nlab/sandbox version. That way it will be easier for people to work out quite what has changed. There are different opinions of the syntax for citations, but the current version with full stops does not look right to me. --Salix alba (talk): 09:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a problem. For example, the following entry is at Aristotle, and the link is broken (it uses ):
 * The previous version of PlanetMath would have generated:
 * Aristotle at PlanetMath.org
 * Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes does seem to have messed things up. I've created the sandbox and testcases mentioned before. For the old Jan 2016 version rendered as And the new version as It is possible to add a mode=cs2 to the call the cite web which changes the full stop to a comma which is a minor improvement but still looks wrong.

The actual motivation for using cite web is questionable, these are external links templates not citation templates, and they are different things. I would revert all the changes back. --Salix alba (talk): 11:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now reverted changes to nlab, planetmath and planetmath reference. The latter is using the cite web. MathWorld is a bit more problematic as it is used either as a reference or an external link, the same seems to apply to nlab as well, sometimes its an external link, some times its as a reference as in Currying.--Salix alba (talk): 11:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It might be possible to convert the nlab template into an actual "reference", if we could figure out how to provide an author or editor, and maybe a "publisher". Perhaps something like "Urs Schreiber, et al, eds., "Blah Topic", The Nlab wiki."  or something like that. Its awkward to figure out quite how to word this, since Nlab itself hasn't given any advice on how to make itself citable (or, at least, I haven't seen any such advice). 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, I don't know of any formal academic citation for nLab. From the nLab FAQ on citing nLab pages, they just mention the preferred form for the url and to be careful of versioning, because the wiki can change over time. --Mark viking (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

planetmath and planetmath reference are now proposed for merging at Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 5. --Salix alba (talk): 19:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Jean-Christophe Yoccoz
Fields Medal winning French mathematician who died on 3 September. He is up for inclusion in the recent deaths section of the main page but has been opposed because the article is a stub that does not reflect his career/research. Can anyone here help out? The combination of French sources and his subject area (dynamical systems) is intimidating. Thanks in advance for any assistance. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite of geometry
I've rewritten the geometry article to be more in line with the changes I made to topology article a couple of years ago. I've used sources to find lists of important topics in geometry, and gathered the previous material into categories such as applications and important concepts. I've shuffled around the old material, and added new, sourced material. I welcome any further changes and refinement (for instance, I did not add polygons as important concepts).Brirush (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice! Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Very nice. I like the way of describing the relationship between old and new mathematics (too many WP articles are written as either old mathematics or modern mathematics do not exist). D.Lazard (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation of unital
I've wikilinked unital in Hurwitz's theorem (composition algebras). Unfortunately, this is out of my field, and I can't tell which is the correct meaning. Can anyone disambiguate this, please? -- The Anome (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Eulerian coherent structure
Eulerian coherent structure is a fairly new article that could probably use some work. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Cyclic function
Sometimes a deleted article is near the borderline between that which should be deleted and that which should be kept, and looks as if some day it could evolve into an article worth keeping. Just in case the one titled "Cyclic function" is such an instance, I've put a copy of it here. One concern is that even if the term "cyclic function" cannot be found in authoritative secondary sources, the topic rather than that particular name of the concept might still be treated in the literature. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Family
There's a question at the family talk page under section the genetic overlap table that needs replies or help from a mathematician. Thanks. 92.13.128.131 (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Gennady Andreev
Gennady Andreev.

Is this article worth keeping? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you unprod if you're unsure? If the answer is no, it would have been simpler to keep it prodded. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I was unsure. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Harmonic polylogarithm
I wonder if you can get more 2002 than this article, even after my recent edit: Harmonic polylogarithm. Work on it!! Michael Hardy (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This page was deleted in the last 24 hours. Something about a blocked user. !?? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides being created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user in violation of their block, it was also tagged by  as a copyvio of hep-ph/9905237. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirects
Is there policy or guidance on redirects? During editing, I stumbled across redlinks which could have been fixed by redirects. Below is my current list. Could someone maybe create these? (or tell me that its a bad idea?)


 * Create redirect exterior connection to Connection form
 * Create redirect contorsion form to contorsion tensor
 * Create redirect strict monoidal category to monoidal category
 * Create redirect finite transducer to finite state transducer
 * Create redirect fibered sum to pushout (category theory)
 * Create redirect Künneth spectral sequence to Künneth theorem
 * Create redirect mapping fibre to homotopy fiber
 * Create redirect mapping fiber to homotopy fiber
 * Create redirect locally finite refinement to locally finite collection
 * Create redirect weak fibration to Serre fibration
 * Create redirect relative homotopy sequence of pairs to Puppe sequence
 * Create redirect homotopy sequence of a fibration to Puppe sequence
 * Create redirect homotopy sequence of a weak fibration to Puppe sequence
 * Create redirect adjoint relation to adjoint functor
 * Create redirect structure coefficients to structure constants
 * Create redirect quantum deforrmation to quantum group
 * Create redirect quantum universal enveloping algebra to quantum group
 * Create redirect prequantization to geometric quantization

Thanks. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * These suggestions seem fine. You may create these redirects yourself by registering and editing as a registered user. For a guidance, look at WP:Redirect. D.Lazard (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * exterior connection might possibly be better off as a red link since it's a phrase one might use outside of mathematics. --Izno (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If these are created, please tag them with R with possibilities. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Heh. I've got wayyy too many cuts and contusions from editing as a registered user to try that again: the WP community is a snake-pit. Its easier to stay out of the spotlight as an anonymous IP address, excepting occasions such as this. p.s. I think that perhaps universal coefficient theorem needs to be moved to universal coefficients theorem  67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Why do you want these pages tagged with R with possibilities? That's for potential templates, and all of these pages would be redirected to articles. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * R with possibilities is for redirects that could potentially be made into separate articles, which is exactly what these are. I think you're being confused by reading the expansion of the template itself on the template page (which produces some boilerplate text with the word "template" thrown in) — read the documentation lower down instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, the documentation says something different, but the template itself says "This is a redirect from a title that potentially could be expanded into a new template". If they really mean "new article", it should be changed. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking deeper, I see that the code has a conditional, so it says "template" if it's in template space. So it's correct, but very confusing. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If a topic is not worth a whole article but is mentioned in some other article, then often a redirect is approrpriate. If it _is_ worth a whole article but none exists yet and you're not going to write one, often it's a good idea to redirect it to another article that says something about the topic. Also, commonplace misspellings or misnomers should be redirected, e.g., theorum redirects to theorem. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Wedge product no longer redirects to Exterior algebra
Someone recently broke the redirect of Wedge product to Exterior algebra. I have very mixed feelings about this. Perhaps having an article on the wedge product, only, makes room for a refactored article on the exterior algebra, which could then focus on the algebra, only (just like tensor product and tensor algebra are two different articles). But this refactoring seems like ... well, it will be long and painful, is my knee-jerk reaction. Any other knee-jerk reactions anyone care to have? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur. The wedge product is part of the algebra, and factoring it out would (in my view) to serve two purposes: (a) to reduce the burden (i.e. size) of the article Exterior algebra, and (b) as a kind of stand-alone pedagogical introduction to the term.  WP is not really intended for the latter, so the real question whether the Exterior algebra article will benefit from such a refactoring.  Since the exterior product is so central to the algebra (as indicated by the Wedge product simply being a copy of the bulk of the lead), I do not see it benefiting from removal of this material into another article.  Anyway, whoever did the change did not seem to indicate that this was the intent.  —Quondum 23:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Fundamental theorem of linear algebra‎‎
This article does not contain any theorem statement. It is almost an orphan: excepting the template fundamental theorems, it has very few incoming links. I have tried to replace the poor content of this article by a redirect to isomorphism theorem, but I have been reverted. What to do with this article? More precisely, what is exactly this theorem (it could be the isomorphism theorem or the main property of duality)? Is the name fundamental theorem of linear algebra commonly used (apparently not)? Should we delete this article, merge or redirect it in another article or rename it? D.Lazard (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe the theorem is that the kernel of the adjoint of a linear transformation is the orthogonal complement of the image of the linear transformations, and various corollaries obtained by duality.  S ławomir  Biały  13:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I meant when talking of duality. D.Lazard (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I have heard these results called "fundamental theorem of linear algebra". I think I agree with the sentiment found in this Quora thread; the article should probably be deleted or turned into one aboutthe fact that there is no universally accepted "fundamental theorem of linear algebra". (Personally, I would have expected a "fundamental theorem of linear algebra" not to rely on notions such as orthogonality, but to apply to any finite-dimensional vector space). —Kusma (t·c) 20:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Numerical method
The new article titled Numerical method has perceptible imperfections. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Breakthrough on Lyapunov functions?
Recently, has added several sections to Lyapunov function, Lyapunov stability, and List of unsolved problems in mathematics describing an apparent breakthrough concerning the construction of Lyapunov functions, using terms like "old problem considered insurmountable by many researchers" that sounded too WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL for me to take it seriously (Update: I deleted the content as a precautionary measure). Further, the only sources for these claims are a 2014 manuscript posted on ArXiv and a self-published 2016 monograph. So, what to do with this? I'm not a mathematician, so hopefully there is someone here with knowledge on the subject. --bender235 (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not see a burst of citations of his work. Moreover, I see citations from the author himself only. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Now reverted all my deletions. What to do? Do we keep this stuff or not? --bender235 (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I decided to delete the stuff again per WP:RSSELF. I think, if anything, or  should explain why we should make an exception to this rule in this case. --bender235 (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Update on the latest development: I removed the questionable content from Lyapunov function, Lyapunov stability, and List of unsolved problems in mathematics, but kept reverting. I repeatedly asked him to discuss the issue on this WikiProject talk page, but he refused and kept on reverting without explanation. Eventually he was blocked, and all three articles are now semi-protected.
 * Today I received an email from (apparently identical to 24.146.193.10), writing
 * I am writing you to voice my protest against vicious repetitive deleting the new sections about Lyapunov function added by me and blocking me from further editing and contributing. Deleting was done by the contributor you who is not a mathematician. The discovery of the general method of constructing Lyapunov function has resulted from my previous research works published by Springer. I intentionally put forth the method in a self-publishing way and on Wikipedia with the aim to provide the widest possible consideration not only by mathematicians but also by experts in other branches of the science and technology (physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, economics etc.) where the problems of stability play a very important role. Deleting my sections and blocking me from contributing to Wikipedia go against the freedom of speech, prevent new scientific discoveries from disseminating them among the national and international publics and research communities, hamper the scientific and technological progress. I consider your actions a sabotage of international level. I will take all the measures to make this outrageous fact known to the widest national and international communities.
 * I'm not going to answer via email, because (i) I don't want this to be a private conversation, and (ii) I want to force to finally participate in this discussion here. I will instead answer here:
 * Dear Myrocarcassonne, your IP alter ego has been blocked because you violated WP:3RR despite multiple warnings. Your contributions have been removed because they do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. In particular, WP:RSSELF states pretty clearly that self-published material does not suffice as a valid reference. Further, as Boris Tsirelson pointed out, the two references you cite are apparently unrecognized by the mathematical (or any scientific) community; they are not cited or discussed by any other publications than your own. In general, Wikipedia is not a platform to disseminate the latest scientific discoveries. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
 * PS: I'm not sure what you mean by "take all the measures", but you may want to have a look at WP:THREAT.
 * I hope this will finally receive an answer from Myrocarcassonne. --bender235 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with bender235. ArXiv is not peer-reviewed (beyond some basic checks for being on-topic) and so cannot be used as a reliable source for a solution to this problem; in addition, we need secondary sources (citations to this work by other people) to say anything about its significance. With an unpublished preprint and no citations, we shouldn't include this material. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with bender235 and David Eppstein.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

There have been additional posts at User_talk:Airplaneman. This is a content dispute that would best be discussed here, not my talk page. Airplaneman  ✈  19:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have also looked at the citation numbers for this particular claimed breakthrough, and find very little in the way of secondary sources discussing this work. That does not mean that it isn't revolutionary, merely that it has not (yet?) been noticed in the sense that no reliable third-party independent secondary sources appear to cite this work in a sufficiently in-depth manner to justify inclusion in this article.  Unfortunately, it is the policy of Wikipedia to require that such third-party sources must exist in order to merit inclusion.  The relevant policies are WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR.  In particular, primary sources typically don't make good sources because it is difficult to assess their weight (in terms of significance), and it is (among other problems) a violation of neutrality for Wikipedia editors to make that decision without explicit independent secondary sourcing.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Unfortunately, it is the policy" — why "unfortunately"? :-)  Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is "unfortunate" to someone wishing to see such material covered on Wikipedia, and it may well lead Wikipedia to not containing the most up-to-date information regarding the latest developments. That is also unfortunate; but the community has decided that this possible deficit is by far outweighed by the advantages afforded by adherence to the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies.   S ławomir  Biały  22:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians,

The pasted below is my latest post on Airplaneman's talk page in the scope of our discussion on the Lyapunov Function article and my contribution to it. This is also my answer to his suggestion to continue it here.

"Dear Airplaneman,

Are you serious? You propose me to discuss the topic of Lyapunov Function with the folks

1) who are not experts on Lyapunov Function;

2) who started “their so-called discussion” with me by destroying my work and debarring me from editing. Putting it bluntly, they gagged me and after it Bender235 was intended to “force me” (This is his exact expression) to talk (What is ludicrous after silencing me, isn't it!?) and do what they want. I call this attempt of violence "the communication rape”.

These people behave like communistic or fascistic barbarians, whose prime policy has always been to intentionally destroy any bit of the knowledge challenging their ideas and prevent the information inconvenient for them from the free dissemination among the public. But it is not a free world. It is a totalitarian one in the information sphere.

This is my personal opinion about what is going on with Lyapunov Function article and my contribution to it. " Myrocarcassonne (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Free dissemination of latest results is a good idea; please do it via conferences, journals, forums etc (even youtube is sometimes used by quite serious researchers, to my amusement); but not via encyclopedias (nor museums) . Just think calmly on the very notion "encyclopedia"... Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * maybe you should ease up on the martial vocabulary. And further, as Boris Tsirelson said, keep in mind what an encyclopedia is and is not. In particular, it is not the right place to publish original ideas. --bender235 (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Article for deletion
Article of interest to this project proposed for deletion: Articles for deletion/Alexandra Bellow. Montanabw (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate article?
I think Glivenko's theorem (probability theory), a very recent creation, is the same subject as Glivenko–Cantelli theorem, but I'm not sure enough to do anything about it without checking first. Am I right? — Gorthian (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No. I think that these are different theorems, but this is outside my field. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Completely different theorems. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you! Glivenko was prolific, it seems. — Gorthian (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems in mathematics
In the List of unsolved problems in mathematics I have taken the liberty of making all the number theory sections into subsections of a single number theory section, and I added "Combinatorial number theory", with just one item. Should we have a new article titled Combinatorial number theory? (Currently that redirects to a section in Number theory, but that section does not currently exist.) Michael Hardy (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Incidentally a lot more of the entries of that list could use sources. Most of the time they can be found by looking at the linked article and finding a recent survey or other representative source for the problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)