Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2021/Aug

GA reassessment for Exponentiation
Exponentiation, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Urve (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Inverse relation, now a disambiguation page
I found that Inverse relation was a redirect page that had been created by means of a move of a page with that title to Converse relation. The latter pages says that if $ a\operatorname{R}b $ if and only if $ b\operatorname{S}a $  then the relation S is the "converse" of the relation R. I found that some articles linked to this redirect page without being intended to link to that topic. So I changed the redirect to a disambiguation page, as follows: In mathematics, the term inverse relation may refer to either of the following:


 * Converse relation
 * Inverse proportionality But then I observed that one of the articles linking to this page is Bernoulli number, which contains this:
 * $$\begin{align}

B_n &= \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\binom{n-1}{k} \frac{n}{4^n-2^n}E_k & n&=2, 4, 6, \ldots \\[6pt] E_n &= \sum_{k=1}^n \binom{n}{k-1} \frac{2^k-4^k}{k} B_k & n&=2,4,6,\ldots \end{align}$$

These conversion formulas express an inverse relation between the Bernoulli and the Euler numbers.
 * Should that be a third item on the disambiguation page?
 * Should there be others?
 * Why is "converse" a better name than inverse? In particular, the article titled Abstract rewriting system uses the term "inverse relation" to refer to what this page move calls a "converse relation", and links to Inverse relation, now a disambiguation page. Should that word be changed to "converse"? I think not, because here's what it says: "$\leftrightarrow$ is $(\rightarrow) \cup {(\rightarrow)^{-1}}$, that is, the union of the relation → with its inverse relation, also known as the symmetric closure of $\rightarrow$. |undefined" I understood that immediately, but I would have struggled with it if I'd seen the word "converse". So how do we deal further with this? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My two cents:
 * 1) I'd suggest to unlink it. In that case, removing the word "inverse" might actually make it clearer.
 * 2) There are nine links in to inverse relation. I think most should point to converse "relation".
 * 3) I suggest you open a move request to see if there is consensus to move "Converse relation" back to "inverse relation". The move was mentioned in the talk page (see here), but there wasn't much of a discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) There are nine links in to inverse relation. I think most should point to converse "relation".
 * 3) I suggest you open a move request to see if there is consensus to move "Converse relation" back to "inverse relation". The move was mentioned in the talk page (see here), but there wasn't much of a discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I suggest you open a move request to see if there is consensus to move "Converse relation" back to "inverse relation". The move was mentioned in the talk page (see here), but there wasn't much of a discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The link to inverse relation in Bernoulli number is misleading. I don't see how the definition at the former page (or, more generally, that at relation (mathematics)) would be applicable at the latter. Therefore, I changed the sentence to "... express a connection between ...". - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

About change of category name Category:Several complex variables
I tried again in the correct talk page. see Category talk:Several complex variables thanks!--SilverMatsu (talk) 10:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Zero not displayed properly
At Wheel theory, the digit 0 that should result from the markup  is not displayed properly. This is a bug, which has now been tracked on Phabricator. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Same thing resulted in recent edits on Binary search algorithm, a featured article. It is important to be able to display 0 as a formula, to match other uses of 0 in larger formulas — 0's in text, without the math formatting, look too different. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

In Wheel theory, I fixed this by changing the code to \,0. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed this to  which is another workaround, and doesn't yield extra space. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also (from the binary search edits) just putting a space inside the math markup —  — works. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

In fact, the error occurs only if 0 is the unique character inside &lt;math>. So, in multivariate calculus, I fixed the problem simply by moving the punctuation inside &lt;math>. D.Lazard (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Move request for Template:Maths rating
See the discussion at Template talk:Maths rating which is considering moving Template:Maths rating → Template:WikiProject Mathematics Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)