Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Here are the latest new or newly categorized articles at User:Mathbot/Changes to mathlists:

Removed Nonagonal prism (is a redirect to Enneagonal prism)

Added Enneagonal prism

Added Ten Rays Model

Mathematicians:removed Jayadeva

Mathematicians:added Jianqing Fan

Mathematicians:added Jun Li

Mathematicians:added Lexing Ying

Mathematicians:added Ngaiming Mok

Mathematicians:added Zhouping Xin

Removed Damping (is a redirect to Harmonic oscillator)

Removed Enneagonal prism (is a redirect to Nonagonal prism)

Added Convergence group

Added Moser–de Bruijn sequence

Added Nonagonal prism

Added Stefan Bergman Prize

Removed Maximum common edge subgraph problem (is a redirect to Maximum common edge subgraph)

Removed Maximum common subgraph isomorphism problem (is a redirect to Maximum common subgraph)

Removed Multidimensional Empirical Mode Decomposition (is a redirect to Multidimensional empirical mode decomposition)

Added Bailey's method (root finding)

Added Furstenberg–Sárközy theorem

Added Maximum common edge subgraph

Added Maximum common induced subgraph

Added Multidimensional empirical mode decomposition

Added Slim lattice

Added Vector-radix FFT algorithm

Mathematicians:removed Donal O’Shea (is a redirect to Donal O'Shea)

Mathematicians:added Donal O'Shea

Mathematicians:added Edward Neuman

Mathematicians:added Ralph Kenna

Mathematicians:added Ravindra Bapat

The counter on the project page has been stuck at 31444 for a long time. Can someone explain how the counter works and suggest how we might get it started working again? Arided (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Posting this here since it would be great if someone could come along and talk about Wikipedia's mathematical culture.

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS (deadline: 30th June 2017)

ENABLING MATHEMATICAL CULTURES, University of Oxford, 5th-7th December 2017

This workshop celebrates the completion of the EPSRC-funded project “Social Machines of Mathematics”, led by Professor Ursula Martin at the University of Oxford. We will present research arising from the project, and bring together interested researchers who want to build upon and complement our work. We invite interested researchers from a broad range of fields, including: Computer Science, Philosophy, Sociology, History of Mathematics and Science, Argumentation theory, and Mathematics Education. Through such a diverse mix of disciplines we aim to foster new insights, perspectives and conversations around the theme of Enabling Mathematical Cultures.

Our intention is to build upon previous events in the “Mathematical Cultures” series. These conferences explored diverse topics concerning the socio-cultural, historical and philosophical aspects of mathematics. Our workshop will, likewise, explore the social nature of mathematical knowledge production, through analysis of historical and contemporary examples of mathematical practice. Our specific focus will be on how social, technological and conceptual tools are developed and transmitted, so as to enable participation in mathematics, as well as the sharing and construction of group knowledge in mathematics. In particular, we are interested in the way online mathematics, such as exhibited by the Polymath Projects, MathOverflow and the ArXiv, enable and affect the mathematical interactions and cultures.

We hereby invite the submission of abstracts of up to 500 words for papers to be presented in approximately 30 minutes (plus 10 minutes Q+A). The Enabling Mathematical Cultures workshop will have space on Days 2 and 3 of the meeting for a number of accepted talks addressing the themes of social machines of mathematics, mathematical collaboration, mathematical practices, ethnographic or sociological studies of mathematics, computer-assisted proving, and argumentation theory as applied in the mathematical realm. Please send your abstracts to Fenner.Tanswell@Gmail.com by the deadline of the 30th June 2017.

The event takes place in the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford on 5th, 6th and 7th December 2017, with a dinner on 5th December and an informal supper on 6th December.

The focus of Day 1 will be on success, failure and impact of foundational research with an emphasis on history and long term development. Days 2 and 3 will focus on studies of contemporary and prospective mathematical cultures from sociological, philosophical, educational and computational perspectives.

Confirmed speakers include: Andrew Aberdein, Michael Barany, Alan Bundy, Joe Corneli, Matthew Inglis, Lorenzo Lane, Ursula Martin, Dave Murray-Rust, Alison Pease and Fenner Tanswell.

Organising Committee: Ursula Martin, Joe Corneli, Lorenzo Lane, Fenner Tanswell, Sarah Baldwin, Brendan Larvor, Benedikt Loewe, Alison Pease

Further information will be added to the website at https://enablingmaths.wordpress.com

Previous "Mathematical Cultures" events can be found here: https://sites.google.com/site/mathematicalcultures/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arided (talk • contribs)

Euler–Boole summation could use work if it's worth keeping.

Summation method redirects to Divergent series. But Euler–Boole summation says that that is a "summation method", but it seems to end up being about a series with only finitely many terms. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Back in May, the community decided that our page on the "Alladi–Grinstead constant" ought to go. In the discussion there, I noted that if the decision was to delete, then Lueroth constant should go as well. I've now PRODed it accordingly. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The page has long lacked a summary that someone lacking group theory and beyond can grasp. Based on several descriptions of the proof, I've summarized it in a manner that would probably scandalize a pedant :) but should be roughly right and quite helpful to very many readers. As it's a huge proof, this is about the level of detail needed to make the basic approach accessible to those lacking advanced mathematics and to educate on it.

Due to its technical nature, I'd really appreciate eyeballs and review to check the technical accuracy, and see if there's areas it can be improved while remaining widely accessible.

Thank you.

Link: Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem#Non-technical summary of Wiles'_proof.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'd quibble with the use of the word "Non-technical" in the section heading; a curious reader who just dropped in after watching an old NOVA special on YouTube or the like would still find it pretty heavy going. I think calling the section just "Summary of Wiles' proof" (or "Outline of Wiles' proof", etc.) would be fine. XOR'easter (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The section title above, Group orders of ${\displaystyle {\mathbb {Z}}^{n}}$ , appears in the article titled Lexicographic order. My experience has been that TeX in section headings fails to appear in the article's table of contents. But this on appeared. Is this a recent software improvement? Does it depend on how the user's preferences are set, or on which browser is used? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

. . . and now I see a part of the answer: This appears in the table of contents when I'm logged out, but not when I'm logged in. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

. . . also links to such a section do not work properly (for example, the link to this thread in my watchlist). In fact, this behaviour is very similar to what is described in MOS:HEAD for misplaced invisible comments. IMO, MOS:HEAD must be expanded for warning about this. D.Lazard (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

There is a redirect, Ω-validity, that is causing a bit of trouble. Procedurally, maybe this should be raised at WP:RFD, but I don't think that's the best venue for a technical discussion.

Here's the background as I can reconstruct it:

• A long time ago, someone put in the validity article a discussion of a concept called "ω-validity". It looked like pretty much nonsense to me.
  • It claimed that a sentence was said to be n-valid if it was true in every interpretation having a universe with exactly n elements. That part is plausible enough, though I've never encountered it. Could be in the literature somewhere, or could be someone's OR.
  • Then it went on to say that a sentence was ω-valid if it's true in every interpretation, and has an interpretation with an infinite universe. That part seems to be nonsense. If it's true in every interpretation, then as there always is an interpretation with an infinite universe, the second part is trivial.
• Then at some point the ω got upcased to Ω. That led to confusion with Ω-logic, and the creation of this redirect and subsequent retargeting, involving User:CBM and User:Omnipedista. Oops — that should be User:Omnipaedista.
• There does in fact exist a concept of Ω-validity that is related to Ω-logic, although the Ω-logic article does not discuss it. See for example http://www2.units.it/episteme/L&PS_Vol3No1/bellotti_L&PS_Vol3No1.pdf. I don't know whether this is worth discussing in the Ω-logic article, which is a very brief view from 30,000 feet and has almost no technical details (if you think it does, that just proves you haven't tried to learn about Ω-logic :-) ). I suppose the article could be expanded, and it might be worth treating in that case, but unfortunately Woodin's project that led to the identification of Ω-logic in the first place seems to have failed. Given that, together with the enormous technical difficulty of the subject, I have some doubts that anyone will ever really want to do it.

So, what to do with Ω-validity and Ω-valid (another redirect pointing to the same article)? Keep in mind that titles are not case-sensitive in the first letter, so ω-validity and ω-valid point to the same place as Ω-validity and Ω-valid respectively, and this unfortunately cannot be changed. (I tried to argue years ago that we should have case-sensitivity when the first letter is non-Latin, but that went nowhere fast.) --Trovatore (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have no expertise in the mathematics content, but if title case conversion prevents disambiguation, then this probably needs a disambiguation page, as it done with Omega-logic. That is, make Ω-validity, Ω-valid, Omega-valid, etc., redirects to a dab page to direct readers to the proper Ω- or ω- topics. --Mark viking (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that might be part of the solution. Is there a standard notion of ω-validity to point to? I could guess that it means something like "true in every ω-model", although one then wants to ask, ω-model of what. I'm not sure you can make sense of ω-models without requiring that the model satisfy some minimal fragment of set theory or arithmetic. Maybe you can; I haven't thought about it very deeply. Or maybe it could mean "provable without using any non-logical axioms, but allowing ω-rule". These notions are probably not the same, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are both attested in the literature, though I do not remember encountering either of them. --Trovatore (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Update: Seems I made a mistake — Ω-logic does in fact discuss Ω-validity. So it's a reasonable redirect, unless we also need to address ω-validity. Do we? --Trovatore (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

How about this edit? --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Seems fine as far as it goes. I tried looking for ω-valid on Google Scholar to get a sense of the urgency of the problem. I'm thinking "not very urgent". The highest hits are irrelevant (accidental juxtapositions), and the Woodin notion with the uppercase Ω shows up before any relevant hit with lowercase ω. There are two relevant hits on the first page, which are probably not the same notion: http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-11512-7.pdf#page=216 and http://www.springerlink.com/index/u66p0010q2161181.pdf. If someone wants to write about one of those, we can revisit the issue, but for now I think we're OK without a target for lowercase ω-valid. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

An editor removed all red links from List of Italian mathematicians with the edit summary "rm non notable. Must have their own wiki page to be included" I reverted the edit on the grounds that red links in such lists were essential to encourage creation of new articles, only to be reverted again, this time with edit summary "violation of WP:V". Is there removal of red links appropriate? 223.227.124.160 (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Usually, in lists of indeterminate size such as this one, we need a rule that we are listing only the notable members rather than all of them: only notable Italian mathematicians, not just anyone who is Italian and a mathematician. (See WP:CSC.) Sometimes that means only bluelinks, and sometimes that means that redlinks can be ok if they are clearly notable and include footnotes justifying their notability. But having a redlink farm without sources in article space is probably a mistake. In the diff you link to from last February, only unsourced redlinks were removed — the names that didn't have articles yet here, but did have articles in the Italian Wikipedia, were left in place. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. For "semantics of X" I normally use (a macro using) \llbracket and \rrbracket, which seem not to exist on Wikipedia. I can hack it with negative spaces, like so, [\![ X ]\!] :${\displaystyle [\![X]\!]}$ , but I fear for my sanity if I have to do that too often. I checked Denotational semantics to see how the authors survived, and they cheated by using the symbols in UTF8 in the running text, which does not help me in math mode. Is there a sanity-preserving way of doing semantics symbols in math mode? — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 17:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article titled Theorem of the unique homomorphic extension is in terrible shape. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have created a new article titled Glasser's master theorem.

The following tasks could improve it:

• Concrete examples of integrals to which it is applicable;
• Other articles linking to it;
• Maybe a proof? Or maybe not?;
• etc.

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Here's the easy part of linking other articles to it:

• Glasser's Master Theorem (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlomilch substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlömilch substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlömilch transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlömilch substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlomilch substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlömilch transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlomilch transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlomilch transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlomilch Substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlomilch Substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlömilch Substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlömilch Substitution (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlömilch Transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlömilch Transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy–Schlomilch Transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)
• Cauchy-Schlomilch Transformation (redirect page) ‎ (links | edit)

Michael Hardy (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)Reply