Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2022/Dec

Requested move at Talk:Dirichlet conditions
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dirichlet conditions that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Favonian (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Could someone from the project please comment? Randy in Idaho is on the rampage. 74.111.96.48 (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a mysteriously heated argument about the proper name for this page, so if there's anyone who is familiar with the topic, then it would be good if they weighed in. -- Walt Pohl (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

A wiki user claims to have solved Navier-Stokes equations
See recent edits at Navier–Stokes equations and also Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness. It's a little contentious; after I removed the added content, the user threatened legal action against me on my talk page! I don't think I'm actually very close to the legal standard for libel, but it'd be good to have more editors watching those pages anyway. Unfortunately I don't know which wiki policies/pages to quote at him. I will direct him here for further discussion. Gumshoe2 (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NLT sounds like a key one. That's an insta-block. Will do. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness had been solved back in January, we would have heard about it by now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The Navier-Stokes equations (as standardized by the Millennium Prize Problems) are inconsistent with General Relativity. Before attempting to solve them, this should be fixed. A search of the Internet shows that some work has been done in this direction. For example, see "Stable and causal relativistic Navier-Stokes equations" by Raphael E. Hoult and Pavel Kovtun. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Navier-Stokes is a much-simplified model; there's no expectation that it is a final theory. It doesn't take relativity into account, atomic theory (!) let alone quantum mechanics, nor electromagnetism (though I understand that they couple pretty well with Maxwell's equations in that last case). The goal isn't to model reality carefully, it's to gain understanding in the least complicated setting where we still don't know what's going on. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * If they are having problems, say unexpected turbulence, it might be because of the mistaken inputs due to simplifications. Garbage in, garbage out. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the goal, at this point, is to get as good of a handle on Navier-Stokes as we currently have on the Euler equations. Once we do we'll be in a much better position to analyze more complicated variants, as well as to decide which are most suitable. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * If someone solves that problem in a classical setting ignoring relativity they'll get the Millenium prize. And they'll deserve it and lots of people will be very happy! NadVolum (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Proof of Fermat's little theorem by mathematical induction.
Dear member, it's been a while since I visited this site.

I have written a proof of Fermat's little theorem.

I am quit insecure.

It would please me if a mathematician reviews my proof and lets me know whether my proof is valid and correct.

I'm grateful for any help I can get.

Thanks in advance, Wim Coenen (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear, you might be more lucky at the mathematics reference desk, since the question does not seem aimed at improving the English Wikipedia in particular. Felix QW (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The linked page contains notation that looks somewhat like this:
 * $$ a \pmod b \equiv c $$

That is not correct usage. In some contexts the notation $ a\bmod b$ means the remainder when a is divided by b, so for example $ 57\bmod 5=2.$  In those cases the use of the symbol "$\equiv$" is incorrect. But in other contexts the notation $ (a\equiv b) \pmod c $ means a and b both leave the same remainder when divided by c. You should decide which notation your using and proceed accordingly. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Is Affine_plane_(incidence_geometry) the same topic as Affine plane?
I think the articles can be merged

Also a wikidata / shortdesc note:

The former Affine plane article is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q382491 "Euclidean space of dimension 2 that is axiomatically defined"; the latter seems to have the description at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4688946 "Wikipedia disambiguation page" (I will probably edit the wikipedia shortdesc but not wikidata).

Looking at Wikidata, this would also affect french wiki: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_affine https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_affine_(structure_d%27incidence)

Romanian only has https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_afin  AltoStev  ( talk ) 23:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * These seem substantially different in focus. The former is mainly talking about discrete structures, while the latter is mainly about a 2-dimensional continuum with a notion of parallelism but not (necessarily) a notion of distance. I think it's probably worth having separate articles about these two topics, but perhaps the first one could be retitled and more focused. The second one is currently barely more than a stub, and can be greatly expanded with many geometric theorems/relationships not currently mentioned. –jacobolus (t) 23:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Nicknames for Rudin's textbooks
I always heard Walter Rudin's three textbooks Principles of Mathematical Analysis, Real and Complex Analysis, and Functional Analysis referred to as "Baby Rudin," "Mama Rudin," and "Papa Rudin" (parallel to Goldilocks). Our page on Walter Rudin disagrees with me. We agree on Baby Rudin, but Real and Complex Analysis is said to be "Papa Rudin" and Functional Analysis is supposed to be "Grandpa Rudin." When the page was created, it agreed with me, but it was soon changed to the present form, where it has remained without a citation for over a decade.

There's a citation for the nickname "Baby Rudin" on the page for Principles of Mathematical Analysis. But I haven't succeeded in finding citations for the other two nicknames, whatever they might be. Does anyone know any sources where these other nicknames are documented? Ozob (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Never heard of "Mama Rudin", but just a wild guess about the analogy here: it corresponds to three generations: baby, middle age, old age, with each generation having acquired more and more experience, and thereby able to tackle more and more difficult subjects. Whereas "mama" and "papa" are the same generation, presumably Functional Analysis is more abstract than "Real and Complex Analysis", thereby more at the level of "grandpa" in the scale of abstraction.  PatrickR2 (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of "Mama Rudin", but I've heard the term "Big Rudin" used for either functional analysis or real & complex analysis. Just FWIW. It's entirely possible that this is a citogenesis event, but I haven't done to necessary research to show it. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I checked Rudin's autobiography and the remembrance article in Notices of the AMS. Neither of them mentioned any of these nicknames. I'm inclined to remove all of them from the Walter Rudin article. They seem tangential at best, even if someone does find a citation. (I think it's fine to leave "Baby Rudin" in the article about the book.) Ozob (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable to me. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Differential algebraic v.s. algebraic differential
Hi all,

I would like to call attention to the point made by at Talk:Differential-algebraic system of equations. As I understand, he is saying that it is confusing to have separate articles on differential algebraic equations and algebraic differential equations. Obviously this is a terminology issue and I am not familiar with the topics to assess if his point is valid or if so how to reorganize the things. —- Taku (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I mean presumably a differential algebraic equation is an alg equation that is differential, while an algebraic differential equation is a diff-equ that is algebraic, so they should mean different things, but I am no-native speaker. —- Taku (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:PlanetMath attribution
There seems to be a consensus in previous discussions that it would be better to remove or replace the Planet Math links. So, I made a change to the template so that it can be moved to the talk page. I would like to ask your advice on this template. See Template:PlanetMath attribution/sandbox. thanks! SilverMatsu (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation of links to Interaction
Could you help to disambiguate some of the links to Interaction? This list shows the 200+ articles with links to the disambiguation page. It would help readers to link to a more specific article. Some are chemistry related and others biology, physics, mathmatics or other sciences. Any help with sorting these out would be appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 12:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * FYI, none of the topics listed in the Interaction page seems to be specifically about mathematics. PatrickR2 (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless you count Interaction (statistics). Michael Hardy (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That's more statistics than mathematics per se. PatrickR2 (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Property of Baire
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Property of Baire that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Abel–Plana formula
This article appears to belong to this project, but does not have the project banner on the talk page 76.14.122.5 (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added the template (and I've done some copy-editing on the article). Michael Hardy (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)