Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2018/Jul

Emma Lemma

Here's a proposed deletion up for discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Lemma. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent

Here's another deletion discussion.

It appears to me that the nominator has misunderstood with astonishing completeness what the article is about.

Click on the linked page and post your opinion. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

MR/Project Euclid bot?

Did anyone ever think about running a bot on Wikipedia to improve mathematical citations based on math databases? Specifically an MR bot/Project Euclid bot of sorts?

For instance, searching PE by DOI reveals that is an entry for it. This is a closed access link, but it does lists doi:10.3150/17-BEJ959, MR3788173, Zbl 06869876 as identifiers. The bot could add MR3788173, Zbl 06869876to citations with doi:10.3150/17-BEJ959 in them. Likewise, instance MR0334798 lists [1] which is listed as "Full-text: Open access" and there is also Zbl 1125.83309 listed as an identifier. The bot could add |url=https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1103858973 and |zbl=1125.83309 to citations with MR0334798 in them.

There are other links than PE in the MR database, but the general idea would be the same. Query various math databases by various identifiers, give the other identifiers when found, and open access links when found.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Going to @JohnBlackburne and CBM: on this since I know they ran bots/ have programming experience / have a background in math. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Not something I know anything about – my programming experience does not extend to bots, and the times when I’ve wanted to investigate it I’ve been stopped by AWB being Windows only.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

AWB wouldn't work for this anyway. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have time for a project like this at the moment, unfortunately. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@CBM: in a few weeks/months maybe? I could make a general WP:BOTREQ, but I'd rather have math people on this since they would know which database to look into and how they are structured. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's a related story about another bibliographic database, INSPIRE, setting up automatic links to MathSciNet (I presume through DOI matching). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits at Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem

I'd like to hear the community's opinion about these changes. For my own part, I think "famously" is quite applicable, and in academic writing, full names aren't necessary (and can even sound overly familiar). Thoughts? XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There's some long-term problematic editor obsessed with words like "famous" -- could this be them? I agree with you about it (it even had its own supporting citation!). About full names, this encyclopedia is not academic writing -- I think the editor has a point (although they are making it in an obnoxious way). --JBL (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm largely indifferent, though I suspect that if I had written that paragraph, I would have left the first names off. The complaint about "award-winning" was also a bit odd, since the citation identified what the award was. XOR'easter (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Glancing at edit history, I'd agree with JBL. The editor seems mostly deal with style and format issues and possibly in often or at least occasional questionable manner.

The "Who" tags are partially nonsense. Using last names at least for repeated use is common standard (in encylopedic writing). Faltings for instance was just mentioned with full name and linked a few lines above. Names occuring for the first time and which can't be linked, should however be given as full names.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point about repeated use; thank you. XOR'easter (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes this is a good point. --JBL (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have undone the edits. The word famous is explicitly present ("Fermat's famous marginal comment") in the cited source. This user Reedsrecap (talk · contribs)'s ^{(hereby pinged)} edits amount to unwarranted removal of properly sourced content. - DVdm (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

1. I find it very rude that someone started a discussion about my edits in a community that I am not a part of, without bothering to notify me, or discuss anything with me first.
2. This seems representative of a general hostility. People are throwing out terms like "problematic", "obnoxious" and "nonsense" when you haven't even bothered to talk to me.
3. As for the edits, undoing them in their entirety was obviously not productive. Text like "One might want to first read an email Ken Ribet sent in 1993" is obviously not encyclopaedic, and the edit summary did not remotely justify the removal of cleanup tags or the restoration of speculation and advice; see WP:REVEXP for why you should do better if you really want to undo in its entirety an edit that someone (in this case me) obviously put time and thought into.
4. Given the insults already thrown at me, I'm not interested in any further interaction here. I'll say only this: the appearance of a word in a source has no relevance to what words should appear in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles must be written in the author's own words. And if something’s famous, you don’t need to tell people; if you need to tell people something’s famous, it isn’t. Reedsrecap (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Re 1: I notified you here.

Re 3: Indeed. That part was put straight by XOR'easter after my revert here.

Re 4: The source's "Fermat's famous marginal comment" appears in the article as someone's own words as "Fermat famously claimed...". The source was put there two years ago, when you repeatedly tried to remove the word as 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:1D8:EEEE:CA1E:EB63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). And see also 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:4157:429C:9508:5045 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2 days later, with this.

- DVdm (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Re 1: I apologize for not pinging you when I first opened the discussion here. I didn't have any definite plans (or even strong feelings, really), so I got careless. Most of the notifying I do is posting to WikiProjects and noticeboards, so posting messages to user talk pages can slip my mind. I can also fall too easily into the habit of thinking, "Why would anyone who is not a math person bother with editing a math page?" and then "Don't all the math people around here follow the WikiProject talk page?".

Re 3: I thought you had a good point about the tone of some passages ("one might..."), so I edited them for encyclopedic style.

Re 4: I don't think the Guardian style guide applies. (And even they don't forbid the word in practice [2][3][4]. It's a style guide, not a commandment.) The function of an encyclopedia is not the same as that of a newspaper; for example, we cover people who were famed in their day for activities largely forgotten now. Few mathematical assertions have had the notoriety of Fermat's, and it is appropriate for us to recognize that. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Just so's you all know. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ditto. - DVdm (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP blocked. - DVdm (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

An old CfD

FYI, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 4#Graphs by vertex and edge count, an old nomination which seems to have not been closed and just recently got attention again. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis:, thanks for the notice; I've just visited and spent my two cents. yoyo (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"Things to do" leads to an "inactive" page

This WikiProject's § Things to do section contains a table of suggested activities, with columns What and Where. Wanting to notify project members that a certain page – Monoidal t-norm logic – is too technical, I followed the first entry in the table, which links to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics/Lists. Imagine my surprise to read there – at the top of the page – that "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference" and a suggestion to "seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump". Yet the page contains a score of sections, each listing many items needing attention for various reasons. One of those sections and reasons is the Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics/Lists § Articles that are too technical. So I've dropped an entry in that list, and used the {{technical}} template in a section of the subject page, viz. Monoidal t-norm logic § Motivation, but thought that perhaps this talk page might be a more appropriate "forum".

Please tell me where WikiProject Mathematics contributors go to request action or chew the fat with each other, if not on the pages pointed to by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics page??? Wherever the preferred hangout is, that's where the WikiProject should point people – not to an "inactive" page. yoyo (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"Please tell me where ..." you seem to have found it, so what's the problem? --2601:142:3:F83A:716E:8F86:6A20:1BE3 (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I've edited the list to try and make it a little more useful. XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Simon problems

I'd like to draw your attention to a Simon's problems draft article. The reviewing process appears to have been done by individuals with little or no science knowledge. I know the subject is notable and even German wikipedia has beaten us to it (see article here). Any help pls? Thankx! Ema--or (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I've put some work into tidying and expanding it. I don't have time today to add the full list of problems, but maybe someone else can get there first. XOR'easter (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It still needs expansion, but it looks good enough to promote to main space now. Anyone disagree? XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

With all the good work put into referencing and tightening up the prose by you and others, this looks like a well-referenced stub that described the essence of the problem list and its impact. Definitely ready for mainspace. The German version of the article has a lot of good detail and refs that might be used for further dev of this article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and promoted it. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Lindelöf hypothesis discussion

Can some editors from the project look into and help resolve the discussion at the Lindelöf hypothesis article's talkpage? Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The substantive discussion there has ended (the only party arguing a particular position has retired), but the talk-page is now getting attention from a pair of SPA sock-puppets who for some reason want to write hundreds of words about a couple two-line blog comments. Apparently IP editors cannot initiate sock-puppet investigations, but maybe someone else has a few free minutes to spare. The relevant contributions are this and this. --2601:142:3:F83A:4D45:1B2F:4D9E:543D (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Kempner function

Can anyone solve the edit war over there? RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 20:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Oy vey. Well, something is better than nothing. Here is some actual useful information: I removed a bunch of content from the article, because it was poorly sourced (the name Smarandache is involved) and not replaceable with something decent. You can read my original edit summaries here: [5] [6]. This has been repeatedly reverted because I am an IP editor and the people doing the reverting think that is more important than evaluating the actual statements that I made. It would be nice if one or two other mathematicians could provide their opinions about the sourcing and encyclopedic value of the content I removed. Thanks. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a mathematician, but I can suggest you make an account if that might help. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Having an account does not make people more agreeable to others. Being an IPv6 may even be advantageous in avoiding being hustled. Purgy (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Having an account might have prevented the very first revert of my edit; but that revert (while annoying) was not the problem. IPv6 certainly has its advantages, as Purgy notes (though, maybe "hassled"?). In any case, I don't see any reason to keep discussing the non-content aspects of the situation, which have been resolved. --2601:142:3:F83A:B17C:769:4F2D:175C (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced mathematician biography

Just stumbled across Krassimir Atanassov, a biography of a mathematician. The only thing resembling a source is an external link to his website. The multiple mentions of Smarandache caught my attention. Should it be an article? --2601:142:3:F83A:F5C6:4523:71E3:A4A7 (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have prodded this article. D.Lazard (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

He has lots of publications... Alas the ResearchGate mentions only 9 (link). --CiaPan (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is the lack of WP:secondary sources for establishing his notability. D.Lazard (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The PROD has been declined, and a bunch of sources have been added. I have not tried to carefully evaluate them, but it seems like very few are the kind of coverage we usually expect for biographies: most are lists of members of editorial boards or similar. --2601:142:3:F83A:4D45:1B2F:4D9E:543D (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The keyword "fuzzy" is kind of a red flag, but his membership in the BAS is probably enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. Maybe today I will find some time to trim it down to what is actually supported by its sources. --2601:142:3:F83A:B17C:769:4F2D:175C (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

abc conjecture implies Fermat-Catalan conjecture?

Per a question at the ref desk: is the implication correct? Both articles formerly claimed it was, but an editor has removed the claim from Fermat-Catalan conjecture. -2601:142:3:F83A:9D73:4BE:2A07:E50A (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, according to M. Waldschmidt, "Lecture on the abc Conjecture and Some of Its Consequences", Mathematics in the 21st Century, 2015, Springer, http://www.imj-prg.fr/~michel.waldschmidt/articles/pdf/abcLahoreProceedings.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs)

Belatedly, thanks. (And for the corresponding improvements to the article.) --2601:142:3:F83A:B17C:769:4F2D:175C (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Article about the square root of 4

We seem to have this new article: Square root of 4.

I don't think we need to be informed of the first hundred digits after the decimal point in the principal real square root of 4. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I restored the redirect (courtesy ping, Dicklyon). I was a little curious about "restore deleted contents" from the edit summary, since none of that content was actually in the history. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Turns out Dicklyon pulled the same thing in 2007 and it was deleted rather than merely redirected that time. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis: : That content was in the edit history of the article that got deleted years ago. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This looks like a satire of our mathematics articles. Not an appropriate thing for Wikipedia. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Just checking to see in anyone's watching after a decade. I hope someone enjoyed reading it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

YES, I really did. I even could not avoid to contribute "primality" to it, but failed for making the edit more explicitly visible (it would have required an additional separate edit; the janitorial paper-shufflers, focused on saving rubbish on pillars, will delete it anyway ...). But even though I immediately restored the status quo ante, I was shot down by a fast gun, in a manner that sadly seems to be typical for the janitor-like admins. Thanks for granting me laughs in WP. I just wonder where you had the data from ... Purgy (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm all for a bit of fun ... but please not in mainspace. Paul August ☎ 12:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of post-nominals after name in the lead of an article

I thought I was safe from this stuff here at least –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos)

It has become clear that there are a number of rather fervent mathematics-focused editors who have not actually bothered to read Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and who think that they get to determine whether or not to apply post-nominals in the lead of an article (and who are feverishly deleting these honours). These editors appear to be individuals who come from non-Commonwealth countries (e.g., the United States) who have no knowledge of how post-nominal letters are applied for various honours systems or royal societies. For the record, Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that post-nominals (e.g., OC FRSC) should be included in the lead of an article after the subject's name. See: MOS:POSTNOM Bueller 007 (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, however you could have posted that info already 2 weeks ago rather resorting to an edit war. Also please note the "... with which the subject has been closely associated"-bit in that guideline, which suggests for the Erdös case and probably most foreign members that the template in the lead is not appropriate and that the honor/membership should only be mentioned in the article's main body (and/or per category and infobox).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Kmhkmh's statement and would go a little farther and say that the guideline clearly says that without a establishing a close association with the organization, the honour/membership should not appear in the lead. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree strongly with everything Kmhkmh and Bill have written here. Compare the MOS with this edit summary, which asserts that all Order of Canada members should have postnominals listed -- such a blanket position is in direct conflict with MOS. (I would be interested to see evidence of any consensus of any group of editors otherwise.) Any attempt to add these postnominals to the first sentence for Erdos or other similarly situated people would be inappropriate. --JBL (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree, with Kmhkmh, Wcherowi, and JBL. As has been pointed out, MOS:POSTNOM says "Post-nominal letters ... should be included in the lead section when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated [empasis added]. Paul August ☎ 18:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up CFD discussion

A next discussion about graphs categories takes place here. Your comments are welcome. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

arxiv-vanity.com

MathXplore has been adding a bunch of links to references via the website arxiv-vanity.com, rather than direct links to the arXiv. I am having difficulty using the search to determine exactly how widely this site is linked from WP. Has this been discussed here before? Do people have thoughts about whether this is good/bad/not important? --JBL (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This looks like an attempt for SEO for the arxiv-vanity site. It would be better to link directly to arxiv than a repackager like arxiv-vanity. Amusingly, the tagline of the site is "We don't want to get all Jimmy Wales on you, but if you like Arxiv Vanity, we'd really appreciate it if you chucked us a few dollars." --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

See this search link. Feel free to purge them all in favour of proper {{cite arxiv|arxiv=}} / {{cite journal|arxiv=}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Had a look and yes, links to sites like that (there are others I guess?) should be rejected, as far worse in numerous ways than direct links to arxiv.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I've cleaned them up. No opinion on whether or not the arxiv citations were appropriate to start with, but most were published in journals/books/conference proceedings. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Headbomb and all. --JBL (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Bott–Samelson articles?

Someone suggested that Bott–Samelson resolution and Bott–Samelson variety be merged back in July 2015. However no one made a case and it was closed last October, but then reopened by the original person who said they didn't make a case for merger because it was clear the two articles discuss the same thing. I don't really understand the merge process, could someone take a look at these and merge them if they should be merged? JustOneMore (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Vertex figure diagrams of polyhedra

Hi, there are two interlinked discussions about the graphical representation of vertex figures for polyhedra, and especially uniform polyhedra, at Talk:Vertex figure#Illustrations and Talk:Archimedean solid#Images. These diagrams are used in a large number of infoboxes and tables in polyhedron articles and so it is important to build consensus on their appearance. More contributors to the discussion/s would be helpful, as they are getting bogged down. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC) [updated 05:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)]

Can someone please check the last two edits of this article?

They may be fine, but the editor is the author of fringe self-published books and busy promoting himself here. That's not an issue for the project, but I'm not sure how competent he is. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Which article? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

DOH! I'm an idiot. Stiffness matrix. Doug Weller talk 18:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I reverted (better be safe) then asked for references from published material. Limit-theorem (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

One-way functions

In the one-way functions article, under the Candidates for one-way functions section there is a subsection for "Discrete exponential and logarithm" and "Elliptic curves". Now I don't know much at all about this area, but isn't it specifically the "elliptic curve discrete logarithm function" which is a candidate as a potential one-way function? If so should the elliptic curve subsection be merged with the discrete exponential and logarithm section? JustOneMore (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the "discrete exponential and logarithm" scheme applies to any finite groups. The most common cases are the multiplicative group of the integers modulo p, and the group of an elliptic curve, but other groups have been considered, such as the group of a hyperelliptic curve or the multiplicative group of a non-prime finite field. So, it would be better to move these two sections as subsections of a section on "exponential and logarithm on a finite abelian group". D.Lazard (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

For corroborating information, see Discrete logarithm. Mgnbar (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I have gone ahead and merged the sections. I'll try and add more info about the different groups after I've done more reading so I don't say something inaccurate :P JustOneMore (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Geombinatorics

This deletion discussion for a mathematics journal may be of interest to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation links

Hi, could anyone here help fix a few links to disambiguation pages?

Bolza surface has a link to Perturbation, Finsler manifold has a link to Minkowski norm and Simplicially enriched category has a link to Simplicial category.

I don't know whether there is a good target article for the links in question, or whether the link should be removed, as my level of Mathematics is not advanced enough to understand these topics. Thanks for your help. Iffy★Chat -- 12:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"Bolza surface" and "Finsler manifold" now fixed, but "Simplicially enriched category" is not. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I "fixed" the last one by just removing that section; it was in pretty bad shape – bad English, questionable math, broken refs, etc. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)