Talk:List of letters used in mathematics, science, and engineering

Untitled

I don't know which kind of efficiency eta is supposed to stand for. Someone should disambiguate the link.

Done. 213.66.223.179 22:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Lambda and Iwasawa algebra

"Iwasawa algebra" is a red link. Is Iwasawa theory a suitable entry at upper-case lambda? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've redirected Iwasawa algebra to Iwasawa theory for now. RobHar (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Letter-derived symbols

Currently the "More" section (which would perhaps be better titled "Other alphabets") includes the letter ш (lowercase Cyrillic sha) for the shuffle product and the symbols ∂ and ∇ used in multivariable calculus. However, the latter two of these are not actually letters; they are mathematical symbols derived as modifications of a lowercase d and an uppercase Δ respectively. Similarly, according to the page Shuffle algebra the shuffle product is actually denoted by ⧢, which is a distinct Unicode symbol, though derived from ш. Is the intent for this page to also list mathematical symbols that are not actually letters but were derived from letters? If so, then there are plenty more to include, such as ∈ derived from ε, ∏ derived from Π, ∑ derived from Σ, and so on.

Michael Shulman (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplication?

I don't understand why this page coexists with Greek letters used in mathematics, science, and engineering and Latin letters used in mathematics. I don't have any opinion on whether it's better to list all alphabets on one page or have separate pages for each alphabet, but it seems a waste of effort to do both. Of course the very short list of non-Latin-or-Greek letters on this page couldn't go on either of those other pages, but if this page were removed in favor of those then there could be a separate page like "Letters used in mathematics from alphabets other than Latin and Greek", or even separate (even shorter) pages like "Hebrew letters used in mathematics" and "Cyrillic letters used in mathematics".

(Also, is there a good reason for the inconsistency in naming? "...in mathematics" vs "...in mathematics and science" vs "...in mathematics, science, and engineering"?)

Michael Shulman (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed! I have renamed to Latin letters used in mathematics, science, and engineering to reflect the actual scope, and will rename this article now. -- Beland (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Graviton

Does graviton (Hypothetical particle) fit into the section for capital G? Gioguch (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Merging the three 'letters' articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, on the grounds that reader are better served by more carefully defining the scope of the articles, adding more relevant material and incremental improvment. Klbrain (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

---

As Michael Shulman mentioned some time back, there are three separate articles on letters in mathematics, with a discrepancy in titles and obvious overlap in scope (This list (entirely unreferenced) is essentially the union of the other two lists and a small number of entries from other alphabets):

• Greek letters used in mathematics, science, and engineering
• List of mathematical uses of Latin letters
• List of letters used in mathematics and science

As Kabiryani pointed out on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics##Draft:Glossary of linear algebra, I would suggest that the sole use of "mathematics" is the least appropriate, since in fact among the now referenced entries those from physics and chemistry predominate. I propose merging the other two lists into List of letters used in mathematics and science, solving both problems at once. It seems to me that splitting the coverage into lists for each alphabet is unsatisfactory for the small number of other entries, mainly from Hebrew and Cyrillic. These should certainly be preserved, but lists that are by nature limited to such a small number of entries may be problematic. Pinging user:D.Lazard and user:Trovatore who were involved in determining the current name of List of mathematical uses of Latin letters. Felix QW (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I would not oppose formally to such a merge, but, IMO, this is putting the cart before the horse. Indeed, for the moment, the three lists have problems with WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and I cannot imagine to whom they may be useful. Here are some issues that are shared by the three lists:

• They do not dinstinguish between standards (uses that can be encountered without explanation, such as symbols for measurement units), common uses that are not mandatory and must be specified before being used (V for a vector space, or $\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma$ for the angle of a triangle), and uncommon uses.
• The lists are indiscriminate with respect to the area of use. A letter can be a standard in a specific area, and be meaningless in another area. For example, $\varphi$ denotes probably a phase in physics, an Euler angle in geometry and Euler's totient function in number theory.
• It is generally not distinguished whether a letter is used as a stand-alone symbol or in a compound symbol. For example, it is said that F may represent a Fibonacci number. This is definitively wrong, as an integer subscript is required for this use.
• There is no distinction between letters used as variables or for denoting unspecified objects, and letters used for denoting a constant or a fully specified object.

So before merging or restructuring, one must have a clear idea what would be possibly useful for some readers. For the moment, I do not see any information that a reader may obtain in these articles, that he has not previously obtained before coming here.

I did a similar work to that that is needed here with Glossary of mathematical symbols. I did not include letters used as symbols, for several reasons, which include the fact that I have no clear idea of what woukd be a convenient structure for solving above issues. D.Lazard (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I share some of your concerns. In my opinion, though, fixing content at one place is much easier than fixing overlapping content in two different pages. Therefore, I think the merger would be the ideal preparation for any restructuring effort.

My personal view on the individual items:

1. I think that actually one should remove all those instances that would always be expected to be introduced before using, even in terse papers; this includes in particular common variable designations (V for a vector space, or for the angle of a triangle) and certainly uncommon uses. This would leave a significantly shorter list, which can help readers to pinpoint uses they encounter much more easily.
2. The area of use could be specified where it matters, and I think this can be done through ordinary editing.
3. I am less decided on whether to include compound usage, but I think it could have its place here if it is clearly a letter with additional identifier (if not here, where else?)
4. A quick fix would just add definite or indefinite articles to the entries.

In general, I think that in the long run, one would like a layout like that in Glossary of mathematical symbols, but in my opinion this will most likely rather be achieved through incremental editing at one place rather than some concerted effort.

I completely agree that we should reach consensus about the inclusion criteria, though. Felix QW (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with this merger on the basis from you removing engineering reference; I actually think removing information will not solve this problem: you should instead ADD information to help comprehensively identify each use case scenario and then structure one comprehensive page where people can locate their relevant data from one comprehensive source, otherwise: Google will quickly outpace Wikipedia traffic, further reducing donations, leading to a downward spiral seen on competing websites (Wikia, Fandom, Wikimedia, etcetera), there is a reason why Wikipedia has stood dominant over others: I've been looking for these symbols' names for 3 years, I found them today because I finally found this page on Wikipedia; additionally I found ALL the symbols located in one comprehensive page, hastening my search result and locating additional information I never knew involving these symbols using a quick and easily recognized quickly navigatable thoroughly indexed page filled with (mostly) comprehensive instruction on each use case. I think this has plentiful engineering references associated with these symbols.

One comprehensive page functions better in this case than a referencing specific individual pages specifically dedicated to each classification; example: a “Greek Letters used in Engineering” page alongside a “Greek Letters used in Mathematics” page would prove less effective than just one page comprehensively dedicated to Greek Letters.

~ Blue64 24.167.45.252 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Not an improvement. We need specific articles to give detailed information, not a huge combined article containing everything. 2001:8003:913E:5D01:C8F0:E933:7B8F:4260 (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FWIW, these articles have since been renamed to all say "used in mathematics, science, and engineering", and the duplication has been eliminated by pushing Latin and Greek lists out to those subarticles completely. -- Beland (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)