Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

This is a discussion page for WikiProject Mathematics

This page is devoted to discussions of issues relating to mathematics articles on Wikipedia. Related discussion pages include: 3

Please add new topics at the bottom of the page and sign your posts.

Template:Infobox conic section

I have come across {{Infobox conic section}}, and thought perhaps you folks might like it. The infobox is currently not used on any articles. If you don't want it, it can probably be deleted. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

References in mathematics articles

I noticed there are very few references to literature in mathematics articles. Is this because mathematics can be easily checked for correctness without consulting literature? When should I consider adding references when adding new content? Lennartack (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Anything dealing with the history, discovery, people, and current research of the specific concept should be cited, and perhaps also applications. Mindmatrix 20:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's be honest — it's because we're lazy. The paucity of references should be viewed as something to fix, not something to copy. (On the other hand, I don't think we need to get manic about inline cites — a single general-reference citation for an exposition lasting a paragraph or two is probably sufficient IMHO, provided that everything in it does in fact appear in the cited work.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think if we can aim to get one citation per section that would be good. The problem I've come across a bit too often is people sticking in something they have worked out themselves. I'm a bit easy on that sort of thing if there seems a good reason, but having a citation with a range of page numbers would help keep peoples minds on the idea of summarizing what's there instead of doing their own thing. Dmcq (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, it helps in keeping track of what appears in which general reference to repeat the general reference (using named refs) every paragraph that it is used (usually at the end). This is especially useful if several general references are used in a section. This is especially useful for future editors trying to improve the exposition, since they do not have to repeat the earlier work of figuring our what is treated where.TR 21:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggested FA drive topic: Otto E. Neugebauer

• Don't know if you folks do FA drives, but I ran across a bio of Otto E. Neugebauer on the Internet, and have claimed him as a hero.– Ling.Nut (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with that — biographies tend to be easier than technical articles for getting though FA, and having a goal like this makes it easier to find improvements to make. But that one needs some effort to get into shape — for one thing, it doesn't even have a section describing his scholarly contributions and their impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

...and it kinda has a faint copyvio-ish odor as well, though I haven't scrutinized it carefully. i don't actually have time to work on it, right now.. posted this hoping others might see it as a worthy task. But... a few months from now, I will probably have time. We'll see. Tks! – Ling.Nut (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Mathematical language must be precise

I suspect that I will need help in a project I am about to undertake. Several articles use the term "evenly divisible" to mean "divisible" which is okay in a non-technical article but not okay in mathematics (it would be like calling 1 a prime number for instance). What bothers me isn't that editors would use this word but that they react with hostility when I attempt to change it - some people feel like they "own the article".

The first resistance I met was in the Y2K article: [1]. One of them suggested that I use "exactly divisible" which is not preferred but I am prepared to compromise this way. I also got reverted on Fermat's Little Theorem [2]. This article relates to number theory so I will not compromise here. Since I am talking to other mathematicians (I hope), maybe some of you could weigh in on the edit wars I post here. Connor Behan (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "edit wars" should ring warning bells. You've posted two links to pages where you have started an edit war. It's not something to be proud of.

In most contexts, "evenly divisible" means the same as "divisible". The choice of one or the other is just a matter of taste. Personally I prefer "divisible" for mathematics articles such as Fermat's little theorem, but see no reason to delete "evenly" from non-technical pages such as Year 2000 problem. That's only my personal opinion; I doubt that there will be a strong consensus either way. I hope that any further discussion of the topic will remain civil. In particular, public declarations that you refuse to compromise won't go down well on this site. Jowa fan (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

We agree on what terminology should be used in mathematics articles :). It seems like we don't agree on what it means to start an edit war - I cited two sources for why my edit made the page better... the people who reverted the change (which even to a non-mathematician should be inconsequential) did not.

Compromise was too strong a word; here's what I meant. A part that worries me is that people seemed to genuinely believe that the standard definition of divisibility allowed 3 to be divisible by 2. I am willing to be civil and take the time to calmly explain why I think they are wrong. But I would not admit that they are right anymore than I would admit that a person saying 1 + 1 = 3 is right. Connor Behan (talk) 06:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There should be something in articles for people who aren't familiar with the stuff but could cope with part of it straightforwardly. The articles are not just compendiums of knowledge, there is a relationship to the people who want to find the stuff. If knowledge is not accessible except to those who already know it then there is zero information in them. As to exactly divisible in an article aimed at a pretty low level that is good. They have spent time at school being drilled into figuring out what seven divided by three is. There is no point paring the language down to the bare essentials and leaving a beautiful struucture that only a mathematician will appreciate. Dmcq (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly divisible is probably better than evenly divisible, because the latter could conceivably be read as implying that the quotient is an even number. --Trovatore (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point, more words means more ways to get the wrong meaning ;-) Divisible with no qualification can often be better. I reacted badly to the title 'Mathematical language must be precise' which implied unreadable articles to me. Dmcq (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, a good way to avoid any ambiguity could be to replace "be divisible by" by "be a multiple of". Personally, I find that "year multiple of 100" sounds better than "year divisible by 100", together with avoiding any ambiguity. D.Lazard (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Multiple of" has the same problem as "divisible"; a non-mathematician might think it could be a non-integer multiple. This could be a particular problem in calendar-related articles, because there are a lot of cranks running around in that subject area who are pushing some version of calendar reform, or pushing some calendar on religious grounds. Such cranks like to seize on ambiguities, both by making arguments within Wikipedia, and basing arguments in other fora on Wikipedia articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think D. Lazard's suggestion to use (integer) multiple is good. Another possiblity is a footnote that says *here, and generally in number theory, "divisible" means "divisible without a remainder".

I don't have a source in front of me, but IIRC Richard Feynmann said (paraphrasing) "of course, 5 is divisible by 2." If someone is unfamilar with number theory and its conventions, restricting numbers to be integers may take a bit of getting used to.

In the original post, Connor Behan said

... Several articles use the term "evenly divisible" to mean "divisible" which is okay in a non-technical article but not okay in mathematics (it would be like calling 1 a prime number for instance).

I disagree. Calling 1 prime is unambiguously wrong (even though Gauss did so sometimes). Saying "exactly" or "evenly divisible", or "divisible without a remainder", or "an (integer) multiple" of is at worst a bit wordy, and may be clearer to Wikipedia's intended audience. Saying "exactly divisible" the first time or two in an article, and then quietly dropping the abverb, seems clearest to me.

Virginia-American (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that "saying 'exactly divisible' the first time or two in an article, and then quietly dropping the abverb, seems clearest". This approach works well in general writing: "Finnias Tiberius Flubberbuster III of Green Meadow, Wyoming...Mr Flubberbuster...." But in formulas or when writing rules or other legalistic text, any variation in wording often implies a difference in meaning. A reader who has just finished reading several articles, in Wikipedia and elsewhere, about the differences between the Gregorian, Revised Julian, and Julian calendar is apt to be thinking in a mode characteristic of legal scholars or computer programmers, and immediately assume that if the words "divisible" and "evenly divisible" occur in the same document, they must have different meanings. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "exactly divisible" is an improvement over "evenly divisible". A person who hasn't been trained to think that "divisible" applies the quotient of two integers is an integer may think "exactly divisible" means the result is a rational number as opposed to an irrational number.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that any speaker of English has been confused by either of the terms "evenly divisible" or "exactly divisible"? These are long-standing parts of standard English usage; "evenly divisible" has had a wiktionary page for 7 years. Language is inherently somewhat vague, but this is the least-convincing example of this problem I've ever seen brought up on Wikipedia. As long as no one demands that we being using "is an aliquot part of", though, I'll be okay. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen the phrase "exactly divisible" before. In the contexts where it's being suggested for use, I already know what it's supposed to mean. I don't know what I would make of it in an unfamiliar context. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'll repeat myself, but, IMO, "divisible" should be avoided when it may be easily replaced by "multiple". A mathematical reason is that multiplication is defined prior to division, and it is always better, when reasonable, to use the most basic definitions. But the main reason is that "divisible" may be ambiguous inside mathematics (divisibility inside the integers vs inside the rationals) as well as outside mathematics. Here is an example, which is not far from Y2K article:

Every year is (exactly, evenly) divisible by four into four quarters, but year 2001 is not divisible by four.

D.Lazard (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you-all just use the word "divisible" and attach a footnote the first time it is used in an article, saying "In number theory, divisible means with an integer quotient and no remainder.". JRSpriggs (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes are generally a very bad idea for this sort of thing. As a general comment, this entire issue seems to be trying to find a solution for a non-problem. It is generally clear from the context what "divisible" means. If not, then the editor should try to make it clearer using his or her best judgement. There's simply no need as I see it to mandate any particular one size fits all solution. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on why footnotes are a bad idea? I thought the footnote idea sounded pretty good until I read your comment. After all parity (mathematics) and number do a similar thing but in parentheses. Connor Behan (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes in Wikipedia are generally reserved for providing references. Mandating a solution that conflicts with this basic use is a bad idea. Add to that the fact that footnotes encourage unclear writing, and more difficult reading. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence that "evenly divisible" can be misinterpreted is [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9] which took me a few minutes to find on Google. Connor Behan (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the same five minutes spent would have led you to believe that it's also completely unreasonable to use "is divisible by", since this seems to cause endless confusion: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]etc. I particularly like [6], in which it is explained that "Divisible in math terms means capable of being evenly divided, without remainder." Meanwhile, the same test proves that "multiple" is also unusable: [7] [8] [9]. (Actually this exercise leads me to believe that "integer multiple" is the best way to go -- multiple does seem to cause fewer problems than any version with "divisible".) Language has a little bit of ambiguity in it, always; replacing "evenly divisible" with "divisible" removes none of the ambiguity at all. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Your evidence for "divisible" and "evenly divisible" being equally ambiguous is not very convincing. In the links you posted, people are simply asking what "divisible" means, possibly because it's a word they've never seen before - like "ecclesiastical". In the links I posted, people demonstrate proficiency in English and mathematics and still seek clarification on the word "evenly divisible" because they think it is ambiguous on mathematical grounds. However, I agree that "integer multiple" is better than either of them. Connor Behan (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

In any event, none of these links either way seem to be to Wikipedia discussions, so I don't think they have much weight in this matter. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Input from editors who describe themselves as able to contribute to Wikipedia with an intermediate level of proficiency in English, like D.Lazard, is quite helpful. I hope there will be comments from editors who are native speakers of a few different varieties of English, and who attended elementary schools during different decades. Most of us learned such basic words in elementary schools, but those schools have a nasty habit of introducing new terminology to new generations. (I never heard of cursive writing while I was in school, even though I learned to do it. Now the converse is becoming true; they're taught the word "cursive" but not how to do it.)

As for the example "Every year is (exactly, evenly) divisible by four into four quarters, but year 2001 is not divisible by four", neither Julian nor Gregorian calendar years, whether common or leap, can be divided into four quarters each of which contains the same number of whole days. So I don't understand the purpose of the example. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Evenly divisible" is standard English for divisible with no remainder, supported by a wide variety of sources: dictionaries, textbooks, encyclopedias, and general usage. There is nothing imprecise about it. The adverb "evenly" does not refer to multiples of two in this usage--indeed it's the other way around: "even," as in an even number, means the number can be evenly divided in half. It is common in mathematical writing to just say "divisible" but this is an elliptical expression for "divisible with zero remainder" or just "evenly divisible." In ordinary english "divisible means "able to be divided." Implying "with no remainder" makes sense to mathematicians because any two non-zero numbers are "able to be divided" in fields. That's not so obvious to laypeople, so using the qualifier "even' is appropriate in articles likely to be read by them. Our guideline Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable says to "write one level down" and "avoid overly technical language." That seems appropriate guidance here.--agr (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm taking from all this that saying abc is a multiple of 4 is better than saying abc is /evenly/exactly// divisible by 4. Dmcq (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely you need to say "is an integer multiple of 4" in order to actually remove the ambiguity? --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

But is it appropriate guidance for an article about mathematics? You seem to be saying that a word cannot be imprecise for a specialized field if it is common English. There are many examples against this; "brontosaurus", "generally", "decelerate", "accuracy / precision" and "countable" to name a few. Another argument is that sticking to one phrase or the other would make Wikipedia more consistent. Even before I started changing articles, a search for "divisible" turned up 1100 articles while a search for "evenly divisible" turned up 90 articles. Connor Behan (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what Connor Behan is getting at, but a word may be used in a specialized way if any reader with a hope of reading the article would understand that the specialized meaning applied. For example, an advanced physics article could use the word "force" without explicitly stating it is the vector that results from multiplying the scalar mass by the vector acceleration. There would be no need to mention that the meaning "a group of soldiers" does not apply. But some of the articles that have been edited, such as calendar articles, are not primarily math articles.

I agree with others who endorse "integer multiple", but wikilink integer because I've taught some high school and middle school, and guarantee that some of these students are unfamiliar with the word "integer". Jc3s5h (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC) corrected 22:30 UTC.

There are words and phrases in ordinary English that are ambiguous in a technical context. "Evenly divisible" isn't one of them. It has only one meaning, divisible with no remainder, and is widley understood by lay people and specialists alike. "Integer multiple," on the other hand, is technical jargon, never used in ordinary speech. The mere fact that you suggest wikilinking "integer" makes my point. Every published explanation of "leap year" I have found uses the term "evenly divisible." Sources are king here. We should not be replacing a commonly understood, unambiguous term with jargon just to solve a problem that does not exist in the first place.--agr (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is one counter example of a person, that had never heard the phrase "evenly divisible" before it turned up here. "Integer multiple" is a perfectly fine common English phrase.TR 15:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you haven't heard the phrase "evenly divisible" is not a disproof of the (true) statement that it is widely understood. Any of the terms under discussion is understandable with 2 minutes on google; I agree with agr that "integer multiple" will be a less familiar phrase to most people than "evenly divisible". --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we at least agree, agr, that integer multiple is preferred in a mathematics article? I don't have time to track down published sources but I just looked at the first 10 results of a google search for "leap year" "divisible". "Evenly divisible" shows up 4 times, "divisible" shows up 5 times and "exactly divisible" shows up once. Connor Behan (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In a mathematics article, I would have thought "divisible" was fine, unless there was some specific reason for thinking it was not fine. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

For those of you who still think "evenly divisible" is fine, I did a Google search for "oddly divisible" and got 5 pages of hits. This is not a lot but I would have expected zero hits if "evenly divisible" were universally understood. While I find "integer multiple" to be a suitable alternative, I suspect that these are the same people who think that 7 is divisible by 3. Maybe they wouldn't think this if Wikipedia pages used terminology that did not support this conclusion. We have an opportunity to educate people here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Behan (talk • contribs) 07:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not accidental that you're the only person to have used the adverb "universally" so far -- none of "divisible", "evenly divisible", or "integer multiple" will be universally understood. The (true) claim is that "evenly divisible" is a common English phrase, and so in widely or commonly understood. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

... but not too "precise"

I looked at the article Fermat's little theorem and saw an example of a pet peeve of mine: In the "generalizations" section is the formula

$\forall a\in \mathbb {Z} :\quad a^{m}\equiv a^{n}{\pmod {p}}$.

A lot of people who know what is intended by "divisible" have never been exposed to logical $\forall \;$ or set theory $\in \;$ notation, much less have any idea what $\mathbb {Z} \;$ is supposed to mean. It is, IMO, much better to say "for any integer a ...." or even "for any integer a (positive, negative, or zero) ..."

Virginia-American (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, though this example would be bad form in basically any mathematics context. I've changed it. (Actually, it looks like someone more obsessive than I could make a whole bunch of the non-logic articles more readable simply by going through and replacing every instance of \forall with English words.) --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The WP:MOSMATH explicitly discourages using quantifier notation in mathematics articles. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I think that notation is fine if the entry level for the topic is university mathematics. That's definitely not true though for things like Fermats' little theorem! Dmcq (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is ever a situation where the writing is improved by using this notation. You never see it in research level mathematics, and almost never in university level mathematics writing, either graduate or undergraduate. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think replacing the formula by text is a good idea here. BUT "any" should not be used as a quantifier in this context; it is too ambiguous. Use "every" instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, neither "\forall" nor "any" should be used if they can be avoided. (And indeed the FlT article now reads "... for every ....") --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you access to 'Prime curios' book?

If you have access to the book Prime Curios!: The Dictionary of Prime Number Trivia based on the prime curios website could you check it actually includes the coincidences mentioned in Talk:Mathematical coincidence#Prime curios please in the diff putting in 999779999159200499899 and some business about changing from bases 2 and 3 to base 10. Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Zinbiel algebra

Some doubt has been cast over the validity of the redirect Zinbiel algebra. Views from experts would be welcome. South Jutland County (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What does the first sentence actually mean, and where can one find a discussion of the doubt that is being cast? (Incidentally, to save other users who, like me, don't see it immediately: "Zinbiel" = "co-Leibniz" = Leibniz written backwards. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably here : Talk:Operad theory#Dubious reference. Anne Bauval (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is not my area of mathematics, but MathSciNet has 19 publications in which the title or review include the word "Zinbiel", by a variety of authors in several languages, dating to 2002. It looks completely legitimate to me. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that both South Jutland County (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and G.W.Zinbiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who created the article) are almost certainly sockpuppet accounts of the community-banned user Echigo mole/A.K.Nole. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Organizing (or "permuting"??) the List of permutation topics

I've started to organize the List of permutation topics into sections.

So far,

• Topics not yet classified into sections are at the beginning;
• A topic may appear in more than one section;
• But a topic not yet classified into one or more sections should appear only once (discuss!);
• Which section topics appear, and in what order (ha!!) they appear, and which should be sub-sections within main sections, are all debatable topics;
• There's a lot more work to do!!

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

...and now it's an organized list: everything is in a section or a subsection. Next step: the rest of you will figure out what could have been done better, and implement those ideas. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's how the table of contents looks so far:

Contents

1 Particular kinds of permutations

2 Combinatorics of permutations

3 Permutation groups and other algebraic structures

3.1 Groups

3.2 Other algebraic structures

4 Mathematics applicable to physical sciences

5 Number theory

6 Algorithms and information processing

6.1 Cryptography

7 Probability, stochastic processes, and statistics

7.1 Random permutations

8 Music

9 Games

126 items are currently in the list, by my quick count. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Leonxlin (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Urban myth about π?

Resolved

I remember hearing that somewhere in the number that a whole bunch of 8s show up either together or in a pattern. If this is not a myth would it be worth adding to the Chronology of computation of π page?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No, because it has little to do with the computation of pi. Appropriate places are the final paragraph of Pi#Properties, or Feynman point, which already covers a sequence of six 8s, starting at position 222,299. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it was an an episode of Northern Exposure. I don't know if the writers made it up or actually did research on it. They may have made it up, as the plot had a couple that were trying to break the record. I do remember it as 8's though, unlike the 6s and 9s mentioned in the Feynman point article. I will resolve this section for now, and thank you for your help.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Bell's theorem (again)

Some more eyes on the current goings-on at Bell's theorem would be appreciated. An editor there is insistent on rewriting the nutshell version of the theorem in the lead to one that is, in my mind, much less clear than what used to be there. An attempt has been made to engage the editor on the discussion page, but it has failed to attract sufficient interest. The editor in question is (apparently) convinced that, since there are two editors on the discussion page defending the old (consensus) revision, and one editor (himself) defending the new edit, that gives him the mandate to implement his edit. I've reverted him several times already, with edit summaries indicating WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD, as well as menitioning these on the discussion page. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted to your version and added a ref which supports the consensus version, also a few others in the "unreferenced" tagged sections. Hope this helps. F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 23:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Category for discussion

There is a discussion for the category: Abstraction that could do with your input. Brad7777 (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process

Our Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process article currently begins like this:

In mathematics, the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process (named after Leonard Ornstein and George Eugene Uhlenbeck), is a stochastic process that, roughly speaking, describes the velocity of a massive Brownian particle under the influence of friction.

Does "friction" make sense? The Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process is supposed to tend to return to its mean. Friction doesn't do that; it only retards motion. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really, it appears to be more like a Restoring force. It would also make more sense in my opinion to replace "friction coefficient" with "spring coefficient" but it depends on what can be referenced. Brad7777 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge Invariant interval and Line element

The merge banners have been up for a while. I agree with merging because there is not much point in Invariant interval and is easily contained within spacetime or (my rewrite of) Line element. If there are no objections - I will merge. F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 22:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Tensor calculus as a disambig page?

People may think of "tensor calculus" as the content of tensors in curvilinear coordinates, but this is a redirect to the main article on tensors. I would prefer to redirect to tensors in curvilinear coordinates, but including both in a disambiguation page would also be ok (maybe better?). Opinions? F = q(E+v×B)⇄ ∑_ic_i 10:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

sorry, but I'm very annoyed

I tried to build up the article Diophantine approximation starting two weeks ago (See its diff-history.) Until then it was a "dead" article no activity on a stub level (called start for politness or motivation I think). After I structured and put MUCH contents to give an overview suddenly User:D.Lazard sprang in action. He must "destroy" the things I want to build up and my thoughts how to present the topic consistently. Look at its talk-page about his justification and reasoning. Apparently he has insufficient knowledge (he doesn't know how to build up this topic he had self wrote) but could judge the importance of certain contributions by mathematicans to this subject. :-( I have waited two weeks now to see whether he is able to learn and improve the article back (or others spring in action). But it seems he is unwilling to check the material what is missing or he has deleted. :-( I withdraw from further contribution to this article and also to Mathematics in general if this is allowed/okay on wikipedia-en, you need really no experts. We(or should I say You?) will never get high quality level of contents. I will look what has happened after 1 week and then decide whether I support wikipedia-en seriously with my knowledge again. Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Diophantine approximation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), fwiw. I see that when you picked up on the article, it was about 9300 bytes, and now it's 21,209 bytes. Looking through the history, it's clear that you added most of that; well done & thanks. Without doing an edit by edit trawl through, it seems to me that you have been mostly successful in building up the article, and that what issues there are are surely on the margins. I don't see a 12,209 byte edit war going on. Reading the talk page, it does seem to me that you are getting emotional and being somewhat uncivil. So, your frustration comes through very loud and clear; but it's counterproductive. I earnestly suggest that you focus on staying very very calm, and discussing issue by issue with DL. It's almost certain that both of you are acting in good faith; if you avoid personalising the discussion there's a fair probability you'll make headway. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you miss the point. I dislike an revision-war, thus no happend, in contrast I with-draw and now after 2 weeks looked what has happend. I will surely not teach and discuss with a person who has too less knowledge (and highly probable know this!) but whom I must/should convince. Sorry, I will not waste again my time with such people! I wonder that people (you?) here judge firstly on "uncivil"/"impolite" than on content/information and this only surficically. Bye. :-( Achim1999 (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I entirely see your point. You know more than him/her, he/she should just stand out of the damned way. And yes, look at what happened: the vast majority of your changes are still there. Cataclysmic. What you seem not to be able to see, from your exulted position, is that he or she may in fact have valid points to make, despite being an intelectual pygmy; and indeed your diagnosis of DL's enfeebled mental prowess with respect to yours may in fact be incorrect. Until you see that those are fundamental problems in your approach, there really can be little progress beyond you flouncing off and wikipedia sinking slowly into the mire. We can only wait and hope. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Achim1999 behaved terribly impolite in several German WP discussions and now tries the same here. Back to mathematics: His style is to write “It may be remarked that, instead of the factor b², a weight-factor of a² could have been used; this would have led to effectively the same properties and insights about rational approximation.” without either showing that this is clear or giving a reference. Achim1999: why don't you make this point clear now? Thank you. -- KurtSchwitters (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, whether Achim1999 and.or D.Lazard are sufficiently mathematically knowledgeable is a sideline. The problem is that the command of English of the former is insufficient to be able to make coherent sense. --Matt Westwood 05:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Achim1999's command of written English is not perfect, and his first drtafts of material can be difficult to understand. This difficulty could be overcome if he were willing to work collaboratively with other editors who could re-draft his contributions. Unfortunately, his abrasive style - as shown in his interactions with D.Lazard - makes this unlikely. It is this combination of imperfect English and confrontational interaction style that is the problem here, IMO. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I want not enter in a discussion about who is the greatest mathematician nor about Achim1099 aggressive style. Let just recall that he has had his disruptive behavior also in Golden ratio and Line (geometry).

IMO Diophantine approximation needs further attention by memberships of the project. Before Achim1999's edit, it was a stub. Achim has introduced in it a number of relevant results, but also a number of sentences that can not reasonably be understood, a number of assertions that are pure WP:OR and, at least, one mathematical mistake (recently corrected). Moreover, the structure he gave to the article does not give a due weight to Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem. In particular he emphasizes on the use of 1/b² to measure the approximation, when other exponents are at least as important (1/b^2+ε for Thue-Siegel-Roth theorem).

I have resolved some of these issues, but a lot of work is yet needed, that I am not willing to do alone. Two points are behind my knowledge: I mention applications to Diophantine equations in the lead but I am not able to be more explicit. I believe that there are other applications (to ergodic theory?), but I have not enough information to put anything in the article.

D.Lazard (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not commenting on the behavioral issues, the edits to line (geometry) and Diophantine approximation over the past weeks have been net improvements. It would be ideal if Lazard and Achim could collaborate amicably, since jointly they benefit the project more than either does individually. I would be sorry to see Achim leave the project over this issue. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

List of partition topics

I've made the List of partition topics into a somewhat more organized article than it was. More work could be done. Possibly the section on set partitions could be further subdivided. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Views wanted

It would be helpful for people to look at articles Weyl–von Neumann–Berg theorem, Dilation (operator theory), Defect operator and Subordination (function theory) which have been blanked as "fake". They are all stated to be associated with Ultra snozbarg (talk · contribs) who has now been banned for them (although Dilation (operator theory) appears to have been written by other editors. Views on whether there is any usable content in those or other articles by these users would be welcome. Mirror symmetry (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)