Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2024/Aug

Wish on making formula editing easier

I submitted a “community wish” on mathematical formulas: meta:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Editing mathematics is too difficult. Jean Abou Samra (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You can use {{tmath}} to save a bit of typing, e.g. {{tmath|x}} means the same as <math>x</math> and either one renders as ⁠$x$⁠, though which one of these is easier to read is somewhat a matter of taste. (This template has an extra advantage that if you put punctuation after the math, you won't get a line break in between.) If you want to specify inline style, you can write e.g. {{tmath|\textstyle \int_1^2 dx/x}} as an alternative to <math display=inline>\int_1^2 dx/x</math> for ⁠$\textstyle \int _{1}^{2}dx/x$⁠. If you need to include an equals sign, either wrap it like {{=}} or explicitly name your template parameter 1 as in {{tmath|y {{=}} x}} or {{tmath|1= y = x}} to produce ⁠$y=x$⁠.

You can ask if you like but special syntax seems extremely unlikely to be implemented. A more plausible thing we could do without platform changes is to find a template name only 2 or 3 letters or symbols. Not sure it would be worth the trouble though. A shortcut something like {{imath|x^2}} for {{tmath|\textstyle x^2}} could be helpful. –jacobolus (t) 18:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Huh! Never heard of this template ever in my life. But the code for writing is apparently somewhat strenuous to me, so I'm comfortable with <math>. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you bolding pointing out flaws in the current math notation system. I think it will take a significant amount of effort to improve it, and certainly the WPM editors should be involved in significant changes.

It's good that you're thinking about ways to shorten the math syntax, but dollar signs for inline math is very unlikely to happen because it would mess up a lot of articles that have dollar signs in them. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The official LaTeX \( ... \) and \[ ... \] syntax is less problematic, but I think still unlikely to get Wikimedia approval. In general mathematics formatting efforts at Wikimedia have been focused on the vain hope that mathml will eventually work and on doing as little as possible in any other direction. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems like math editing should be one problem visual editor "solves", or perhaps via a plug-in that automatically converts LaTeX into wiki math formatting. Related, thunderbird email client has math editing in in a separate window where you can use ordinary latex and is then converted into whatever format the email client understands. Tito Omburo (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, @Jean Abou Samra if you ever run into difficulty with math formatting on a specific page, feel free to ask for help here, or drop a note at my talk page. –jacobolus (t) 16:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

This is just some general comment. There is a question on what is technically possible, but there is also a question on what Wikimedia/Wikipedia community would want. I have been having a suspicion that the subper implementation of math rendering/editing here might be intentional; i.e., it’s Wikipedia:Broken by design. Surprisingly (and not really surprisingly), not many people are fond of math contents in Wikipedia. So, maybe it is not necessary for Wikipedia community's interest to make math editing easier (at least, I have not seen any real efforts to recruit more new editors to write and edit math articles). See also User:Deltahedron. So, if this theory is correct, the foundation may nominally solicit some comments for improvement but they will never be implemented. (I emphasize I may be wrong about my suspicion.) —- Taku (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"Admits"

Would it be possible to create an entry for "admits" in the glossary of mathematical jargon? There's what looks to me like a plausible definition in this Reddit post, but Reddit is far from being a WP:RS. — The Anome (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The top answers on that Reddit post are more or less correct. Object A admits structure B if structure B could be imposed on object A. I mildly support adding "admits" to glossary of mathematical jargon. "Equipped with" is another good candidate. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

1234 (number)

Tension arise between @David Eppstein and @Radlrb in the article 1234 (number). Previously, both users had already edited war in the article Golden ratio, and one of them was blocked. Now, to think that the main problem of the article is about the content explicitly saying about the "mock rational" property of 1234, and both of them are talking about the property from different perspectives, many members of this WikiProject are welcomed. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I have a clear-cut case that my addition is worthwhile, as the reference used makes use of the term "schizophrenic" for all its terms. Provided (non-WP:SYNTH) associated properties that tie together, from already published sources (OEIS sum-of-divisors).

I'm not sure why you mention "one of them was blocked" unless you are purpusefully trying to tilt the scales (I see he was your GA arbitrator for Square pyramid, which raises questions here with regard to your impartiality). I am not going to continue debating this with David Eppstein as he is clearly not interested in holding a back-and-forth conversation (as is his history with anyone disagreeing with him, aside from his obvious prejudice as I mentioned), nor will I debate with anyone who blankly denies entries on WP on the basis of breach of specific policies, where nowhere is there a mention of non-addition of properties that directly tie to properties of another number (in light of, distorted "off-topic" removals; like saying that the Golgi apparatus has nothing to do with non-protein synthesis and packaging in a cell, when its in a diverse metabolic environment where even slight temperature changes, for example, lead to differentials in cell metabolism that affect all organelles). This being said, I welcome honest, and intuitive points of view, given the natural goal I have in mind when I contribute here, which is to muster together major properties of numbers, in a manner that links our number articles together into a sort of flowing unit. It's an important and invaluable endeavor! Radlrb (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following this. On the talk page David Eppstein refers to the "first member of sequence to have a repeated digit in the first five after the decimal" property, but I cannot find this on the page or in the edit history of the page. Based on the edit history it seems like this is instead the contentious content. If so, then I think I agree with David Eppstein – however I find the removed content too confusingly stated to be completely sure. (If it's not a schizophrenic number, then what's the sequence in question?) Gumshoe2 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Follow the current stated property, for integer parts of square roots of the sequence of numbers 1, 12, 123. Thats what is there right now. And read the title of the source. Radlrb (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

So the property is that $\lfloor {\sqrt {1}}\rfloor =1$ and $\lfloor {\sqrt {12}}\rfloor =3$ and $\lfloor {\sqrt {123}}\rfloor =11$ are not composite numbers but $\lfloor {\sqrt {1234}}\rfloor =35$ is? And the first few schizophrenic numbers are 0, 1, 12, 123, 1234, ...? Then I don't understand any of the talk page discussion, and also this property seems extremely arbitrary. And I don't understand why the wikipage presently says "Though not strictly a schizophrenic number in base ten..." when it seems that 1234 is exactly a schizophrenic number. Gumshoe2 (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not arbitrary, not any more "arbitrary" than 1234 being the first in its sequence (1, 12, 123, 1234, ...) *not Radlrb (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)* divisible by their one's digit, which David Eppstein added. The sequence property I added mentions its composite integer part that is also the first term in a self-similar sequence, as it points out; the first term. In fact, its not arbitrary at all, because it shows that this sequence is self-similar like the sequence for odd-indexed schizophrenic numbers, tying them together with this property. Indeed, I also see sqrt1234 as a schizophrenic number and many authors do too, however in the literature, the property of interest of repeating digits in the fractional part of their square roots is most prominent in odd-indexed terms (sqrt1, sqrt123, sqrt12345,...), and these are technically the "strict" schizophrenic numbers. If you ask David, he will tell you that the square root of 1234 is not schizophrenic. Radlrb (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't completely follow everything you're saying, but I am confident now in saying that it's a pretty arbitrary property. However I completely agree with you that it's no more arbitrary than the other property you just mentioned – the reference given for it doesn't even suggest that it's notable, it's just mentioned there as an example of a non-solution to some mental puzzle. Gumshoe2 (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you don't follow what I am saying, then you very likely don't understand the very subject matter we are speaking of, I think. 1234 is not a schizophrenic number, is it's square root, likewise for 123, etc. I am amazed, because I showed there that the arithmetic means of divisors of the following even indexed schizophrenic number (sqrt123456) is twice the integer part of the square root of the sqrt of 1234. Then I showed that the product of the first and forty-fourth super primes is the integer part of the sqrt12345678, the following (fourth) indexed member, where 44 has distinct and important partitions that number 1234. (By the way, none of this is OR or SYNTH, as many claim, these are known facts, I'm just juxtaposing them.) So, I am amazed, that so many people here throw the word "arbitrary" around like it's Christmas. Do you have any idea, of how difficult, and challenging, it is to find synchronicity and sense in mathematics? Be grateful, for the love of our very existence and subsistence, that these facts exist. That you ask, for an infinitude of data, to make sense of a sequence linearly that ties sum-of-divisors, aliquot parts, totients, or triangular numbers, together as I am ligating, so as to then say "okay, maybe I'll buy it", is an affront; these types of data represent an unimaginable blessing, any time they come into form. The unimaginable magnitude of complexity to tie these together, and any set of sufficiently differently defined sequences together, in purely logical form, is so astronomically difficult, that we should STILL not expect to delve into the real deep end of mathematics for another ten thousand years, at the very, very least. So when you just tell me something like what I am telling you is "arbitrary", that's akin to a school child (you, me, a plant, anyone) trying to tell the very Earth, or Sun, in their absolute enormous computational power, anything about anything that exists outside a flat surface in her/his little bedroom, house, or school yard. And im being kind here, there's no telling how complex Mathematics really, really is. There's no living organic-born or ethereal angel in our Universe that has a real-idea of all Math. Thats for the stars to contemplate. Radlrb (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That you ask, for an infinitude of data – I don't need an infinitude of data, but it would be nice to have a reliable source demonstrating that this is considered important by someone other than Wikipedians or OEIS contributors. The OEIS has decent standards for correctness of details but very lax relevance standards for inclusion of new sequences.

when you [tell me something] is "arbitrary", that's akin to tell[ing] the very Earth, or Sun [...]" – let's not get carried away please. –jacobolus (t) 20:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Not getting carried away, we are ants still, trying to understand a landscape of truth far larger than you or I can even conceive, proven every millenium by the next mass discovery that upends everything once conceived. If anything, I was being quite minimalistic. The comparison is more on the order of particles, and entire universes. We're little specs, and if you think you have any true idea of anything, check back in your next ten thousand lifetimes, and then tell us what you've learned. Don't come and tell me anything absolute about anything only after 10,000 years of "civilization". There is a saying that goes more or less, "the more aware you are of how little you know, the wiser you become." I'm sure you've heard of it. It makes sense, because the more open you are to what holes you have in your consciousness, the more keenly you will reach to understand more clearly. Radlrb (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to expound about this at whatever length you want on your own blog. It's entirely inappropriate at Wikipedia. –jacobolus (t) 00:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, what policy am I violating here, please enlighten me. I can speak my opinion on shortsightedness that is being displayed here, based on which number properties to include on a number article, to your chagrin. It seems you're also short of an actual response, so you revert to attempting to mute me, which is of course, a weak display of discourse. I can speak my opinion here, period. You're the one who doesn't need to answer, or even read it. Like the rest of what you have already ignored. Radlrb (talk) 04:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This venue is for discussions about issues related to the content or style of mathematics Wikipedia articles which can't be resolved at a specific article talk page or which concern multiple pages. It is not a free-for-all about any Wikipedian's shower thoughts about their communion with the spirit of the universe or whatever you are talking about. Take it to twitter or something; I'm sure your ideas about the unboundedness of existence are perfectly lovely but nobody here cares to read them. –jacobolus (t) 04:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"The integer part of this number's square root is composite" is a rather boring property. If you want to mention schizophrenic numbers, the best thing I can come up with is "1234 appears in a sequence of numbers whose square roots are schizophrenic"; this is at least marginally more interesting than the compositeness of the integer part of the square root. —Kusma (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, in your perspective, since no known “applications” are known, that’s how we define usefulness here, on practical terms alone. Oh I get that; in our mathematical global community, we don’t seek bridges between numbers. Radlrb (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I see he was your GA arbitrator for Square pyramid, which raises questions here with regard to your impartiality Well, in a precise meaning, he reviewed the article Square pyramid regarding the criteria of GA. I did not see anything about my impartiality whenever replying to his comments. The fact that the way you are saying "arbitrator" means I have some dispute with another user, and he gave a solution to alleviate the tension between me and another user? I can't understand what do you mean about that. Perhaps there are some alternative interpretations from your perspective that I could not imagine in my head. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I used the wrong word, but for other reasons. Radlrb (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what other reasons are you referring to? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone that on Wikipedia, we assume good faith and use etiquette and civility when talking to others. Cases of severe incivility are subject to policies on WP:UNCIVIL. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-mathematician here. The article 1234 (number) says:

• Though not strictly a schizophrenic number in base ten, the square root of 1234 is the first in its sequence (of square roots of integers 1, 12, 123, 1234, ...) to have a composite integer part, of 35.

with a ref to a site OEIS.

The ref does not say anything about 1234, it's about "Integer parts of the square roots of the schizophrenic numbers", which 1234 is not. In normal parts of Wikipedia such a sentence would be deleted.

I found the article very unsatisfying. It seems to be mostly a list of all the things one could find using a search on OEIS. That's not knowledge. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone been able to figure out what property is actually being asserted? Like, what is its definition? Tito Omburo (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about the continued editing of number articles by Radlrb, which appears to involve high degrees of OR and synthesis. We have recently had some back-and-forth at 18 (number), but I think the underlying issue is probably present elsewhere, too. Could anyone take a look? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

My edits do not make statements or clauses of “consequences” from the additions. They compound relevant information together, that is all. If it is such an issue, then why do my edits continue to exist? Maybe it is because it is valuable information, and because it is advancing an encyclopedic understanding of mathematics. I’ve been adding information here for over two years now, in like fashion, and it is definitely a serious improvement to the state of number articles here since say, March 2022. Radlrb (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You're defining WP:SYNTH. Tito Omburo (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevantly so, since in number theory you will get natural "flow" when points start to amalgamate together. To not juxtapose them is therefore unscholarly and a lie. Take for example additions I made to the article for 19, regarding hexagons:

The number of nodes in regular hexagon with all diagonals drawn is nineteen.

• Distinguishably, the only nontrivial normal magic hexagon is composed of nineteen cells, where every diagonal of consecutive hexagons has sums equal to 38, or twice 19.
• A hexaflexagon is a strip of nineteen alternating triangular faces that can flex into a regular hexagon, such that any two of six colorings on triangles can be oriented to align on opposite sides of the folded figure.
• Nineteen is also the number of one-sided hexiamonds, meaning there are nineteen ways of arranging six equiangular triangular polyforms edge-to-edge on the plane without turn-overs (and where holes are allowed).

Yes, these all make connections together for the sake of 19 as it expresses symmetries in a hexagon, in different ways. However, they clearly belong together. WP:SYNTH is therefore clearly not constructive to an encyclopedic representation of hexagonal symmetry and 19, regardless of whether someone else said it directly or not. The same applies for my other additions, of which they number more than 8,000 edits. Who else on Wikipedia has done more than 1000 edits to number articles here, and who has begun to generate a clearly needed template for the development of a "number article" here, beyond lower subheadings?

Can we please stop this nonsense now, you both and anyone else "fearing and concerned" about what I am doing here know very well, that I am a benefitting force, rather than a limiting one. Respectfully, and thank you. Radlrb (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Tito is not complaining about juxtaposition, which is different than WP:SYNTH, see WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION. Tito is complaining about including facts in an article that are not stated in a source.

The fact that some of your edits were not reverted immediately is not evidence that they are high-quality. Wikipedia is run by volunteers and many of your edits won't be reviewed for a long time. I looked at some of your edits to other pages and I think that some of them are genuine improvements that the members of WPM would be thankful for, and some of them contain large amounts of irrelevant information. Instead of getting into a big argument about this, we could see it as an opportunity to grow and engage with the community. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this 100%. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

99.9999% or more of my edits have not been reverted, so in all likelihood, the converse is what is true. More so, people do revert edits of vandalism to number pages very quickly, take a look yourself at just about any number page. Radlrb (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No one is accusing your edits of being vandalism. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I know my edits are not vandalism, however showing that vandalism actively gets reverted also demonstrates that number article pages are being constantly monitored and vetted. Radlrb (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not, it shows that people patrol things like WP:recent changes specifically to prevent vandalism. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope, it shows people are watching. Two years and half, its been. Radlrb (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia changes which are nonsense, factually inaccurate, original research, push a POV, use an un-encyclopedic tone, etc. persist in Wikipedia for extended periods – decades sometimes. This happens because volunteer effort is finite and it's easy to slip under the radar, not because these changes would stand up to close scrutiny. [Note: the same is also an issue with every other kind of published work, including newspaper articles, peer-reviewed papers, scholarly monographs, textbooks, ...] –jacobolus (t) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Not accurate, since we know that my additions have been watched for quite some time, and if you look at page views, the're has been a substantial increment of views, at least by 1,000 views or more since I started editing, for small number pages. So the idea that it has gone unnoticed is a flawed narrative. It's definitely been notices for quite some time, and those in Wikiproject Numbers have also monitored developments, as seen in the Talk page. Radlrb (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Some of your additions remain a long time because it requires a certain amount of mathematical expertise to understand that they are off-topic or otherwise not an improvement. Very few editor-volunteers can do that, but nearly anyone can see that adding "farts!" to an article is not an improvement, so simple vandalism like that is (usually) quickly reverted by a larger community of recent-page patrollers. -- Beland (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Some of your edits to 18 (number) (specifically, the ones I reverted) are bad because they violate WP:SYNTH. I do not think you are intentionally making bad edits. However, when someone explains to you that your edits are bad, you should try to understand the objection and change the way you edit. Will you do that? Have you read WP:SYNTH? Do you understand how it applies to the edit I reverted? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have to change my editing behavior when I disagree with your position, and when most editors vetting the pages have let the information stand. I don't see an issue, I only see 10 or so people disagreeing, which is an overwhelming minority opinion. Radlrb (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear: you agree that perhaps 10 different people have told you that there are problems with your edits, and you are committed to not changing the way that you edit despite this? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That's right. I don't expect support to arrive, since what I am doing is pushing through a barrier that shouldn't exist, and a policy that is derogatory and unapplicable here in this case. Also, because I know I have silent support, and I have proof of it, as I already mentioned: my edits have stood the test of time. Also, I have added brilliant material, so I know I am doing the right thing, regardless of immature pedantic views. You know, as with many peoples, black folk were unnallowed to do many things in America, against "laws" inhumane to them. They broke free, and are breaking free more every day, teaching us along the way to not hold back against unfair and limiting barricades. In like manner, I am unafraid of breaking this Wiki "law", I'll tell you that, because I am enlightening our Wiki community, and you are not going with the flow of things, by pushing this. Radlrb (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:ANI is semi-protected at the moment, so I cannot report you there until that expires. You can look forward to that when the semi-protection expires. It's too bad, because you're not a total crackpot or hopelessly incompetent, but Wikipedia has policies for good reasons, and your belief in your personal superiority is, uh, not very compelling. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

"you're not a total crackpot or hopelessly incompetent". I do not think of myself above anyone, and I welcome others to join me in this loving work that I continue to bring forth. Radlrb (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

What would it take to convince you that the consensus is that some of your edits should be reverted? If 10 people telling you so isn't enough, what about 100 or 1,000? What if half of your edits were in fact reverted by various editors? If you'd like, I can start reverting your edits. For what its worth, Wikipedia has a policy WP:DETCON about how to determine consensus, which essentially says that in this instance, discussions on this page are what determine consensus. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

If someone wants to report these funny discussions in WP:ANI. I think I can help. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll do that. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Reported. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Go right ahead! Let's get to it once and for all. My work has already been done: vet the information I have added, and it stood the test. People are genuinely interested in my inputs. I don't know how any of the votes would go, however, it is definitely worth witnessing. What you do with the information from here on forth, is another matter entirely, if I get blocked, banned, or whatever. Many good-doers have gone to jail for their efforts. I did my job. Oh, and you will eventually be grateful. Radlrb (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You keep claiming that all of your "work" is improving the pages, and that some mysterious "other people" support you, yet no-one else here has actually observed any of these approving people. I have removed a number of your contributions which I think (my opinion, just like your opinion) are not appropriate. For example, the strange diagram now on Talk:2; I have just removed again, and request other people here to consider this example. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You should not assume that because 1000 people read an edit and of the 9 people who commented upon it, they all opposed it, means that 991 people approve of the edit. It's more realistic to assume the silent majority breaks down similarly to the people who are actually speaking up. In other words, if 1 editor (the author) is in favor and 9 are against, if the editors are at all a representative sample of readers, probably 90% of the people who read the edit disapproved of it. It's just that not everyone files a complaint every time they see something wrong on Wikipedia. In fact, the vast majority do not. I generally assume that if two editors tell me a change I've made is bad and no one else replies to the talk page discussion, then it is in fact an undesirable change. If it's only one editor and I have strong feelings I'm right, I'll ask for a third opinion. If I think the two editors are not representative of broader editor opinion, I'll ask at a WikiProject or RFC, but that's really for extraordinary circumstances, and only after trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. If ten editors tell me I've made a bad edit and no one else replies to the request for opinions, then clearly consensus is against my edit, and it'll be removed no matter how right I think I am, and at that point it's time to move on to something else. The discussion part is very important; not everyone is really paying attention at first or has really thought through all the consequences of an opinion (including me). But at some point once a question has gotten a fair shake, the supermajority of discussion participants rule. -- Beland (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, since you like arithmetic: I have reverted, today, two of your edits. Since you have only ever made 8532 edits to Wikipedia, that means that your estimate of your error rate (you said less than 1 in 1000000) is off by at least 2.4 decimal orders of magnitude. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

lol, I did add two extra 9s, didn't I Radlrb (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Suspected mistake

Perhaps someone who is familiar with continued fractions (and/or "generalized continued fractions") and maybe also "infinite series" ... could take a look at this recently added section in a "Talk:" page :

Talk:List of things named after Leonhard Euler#Suspected mistake ("finite" vs. "infinite")

OR: ... (in case it has been 'archived', or something...) one may "instead" look here:

Talk:List of things named after Leonhard Euler&oldid=1238883601#Suspected mistake ("finite" vs. "infinite"

Thank you, Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Polytopes

I'd bring this up on Template talk:Polytopes, but that hasn't had activity in a decade, so I though I'd start here. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL indicates that in most cases that for a template like Template:Polytopes, pages that link to the template should be the same as those that the template links to. Template:Polytopes is *massively* off from that, see https://templatetransclusioncheck.toolforge.org/index.php?lang=en&name=Template%3APolytopes . The ones that are linked to that don't use the template are mostly Lie groups, and there are a *lot* of Polytopes that have the template, but aren't part of it... Naraht (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Help make number articles more accessible!

See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#Help remove WP:CRUFT on number articles! Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Mathematics glossaries

Given that Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries is inactive, do we want to do anything with the mathematics and logic glossaries? A few possibilities:

1. These glossaries are a bad use of our editors' time. Remove them from this WikiProject.
2. These glossaries are not very important to us, but they should still all be added to this WikiProject as low-priority.
3. It is useful to have some glossaries, and we should clean up the existing organization insofar as it is insufficient and spend some editor time improving these.
4. Glossaries are be an important way for us to organize our articles, and we should spend significant time on them.
5. Some of these glossaries are important and we should spend time on them, and others are really not important and we can safely ignore them.

I'm wondering where others stand on this. I would consider myself either a 2er or a 3er. If some of you are 3ers or 4ers, I can propose a clean-up to the existing organization. Also note the existence of Category:Outlines of mathematics and logic and Category:Mathematics-related lists. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I definitely find some of the glossaries to be important, for at least two reasons. First and most importantly, they provide wikilink targets for terminology that may not have or deserve its own separate article. But also, by putting the terminology for a subfield in a single place, they give readers a broad overview of the terminology and can be a helpful warning about certain pieces of ambiguous terminology. In particular I think those justifications are all valid for the glossary I have put the most effort into, glossary of graph theory. But I don't think your questions can be answered as you have formulated them, at least not by me, because I don't have the comprehensive knowledge about all our glossaries that would enable me to answer universally-quantified questions about them.

As for wastes of editors' time: I think you are wasting your time casting around for content to destroy. Find something more constructive to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein I am sorry that I gave off the impression that I am "casting around for content to destroy". To be honest, I am kind of shocked by your accusation, and I don't really know where it is coming from. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you found my inclusion of position 1 offensive, but I do not support position 1, and position 1 does not call for "destroying content". Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

After looking again at @Jacobolus's comment, maybe I was unclear: by 1's "remove from this project", I meant "remove the WPM template from their talk page", not delete the page. I only brought this up because some of the math glossary pages are do not have the WPM template, and I was trying to ask if this was intentional before I went ahead and added them to WPM. That was what really prompted me to make this post. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove the WPM template. If it is missing from one or another of these pages feel free to add it. –jacobolus (t) 08:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, everyone here is a volunteer. We should respect what other people choose to spend their time on, even if it's not interesting to us. Mathwriter2718 was not proposing the deletion of any content, merely trying to get a sense whether this WikiProject wanted to adopt some additional pages. -- Beland (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

These glossary pages all have very few page views. Feel free to work on improving them if you want to, or else leave them alone. They aren't particularly important to Wikipedia as a project or WPM just because they are so rarely seen. But they also aren't hurting anything. There's no reason to remove them. –jacobolus (t) 02:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

As someone who edits the glossaries articles a lot, I think the glossaries should have a place in Wikipedia. To add to what David said, the glossaries often contain red links and red links are useful and important. I don’t know about view counts of the glossaries but they shouldn’t matter much; in fact, in Wikipedia, we don’t pursue views or likes (gasp) and that should be a good thing. What I am less sure about are lists of topics or outline articles; they seem to cover essentially the same ground as that by the glossaries. So, we can argue there is some redundancy, which itself is not a problem but the less redundant the content is the easier we can maintain it. —- Taku (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I had a look on category:Glossaries of mathematics. Most of them are glossaries of "terminology of some area of mathematics". Such glossaries are very useful, especially for areas that have a large terminology that is commonly used without being redefined and for areas, such as graph theory, where the number of variants make correct linking difficult. Some general glossaries seem also essential, such as Glossary of mathematical jargon and Glossary of mathematical symbols, for which many individual entries cannot be the subject of specific articles. The only mathematical glossary that is problematic seems Glossary of areas of mathematics, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and also because the linear order of a glossary hides the complex graph of the relationships between areas of mathematics, better renderes with categories.

On the other hand, most articles in Category:Outlines of mathematics and logic are misleading because they oversimplify their object and give a biased information by omitting important aspects and giving too much importance to minor aspects. IMO, most articles entitled "Outline of someAreaOfMathematics" or "List of topics in someAreaOfMathematics" should be transformed into a redirect to someAreaOfMathematics. D.Lazard (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning Category:Glossaries of mathematics, I hadn't seen that. I updated Wikipedia:Contents/Glossaries/Mathematics and logic to be consistent with it. I went ahead and added all of the pages in that category (that weren't already) to WPM.

It seems to me like the following glossaries ought to exist (but don't currently):

• Analysis (real and complex),
• Combinatorics,
• Differential equations and dynamics (which would include both ODE and PDE),
• Geometric topology,
• Logic (or model theory, if logic overlaps too much with set theory, for which a glossary already exists),
• Number theory.

Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We have Glossary of algebraic topology, which should cover geometric topology. On the other hand, I am quite surprised to find out that we don’t have glossary of number theory and glossary of complex analysis (we do have Glossary of arithmetic and diophantine geometry, but that one would arguably have a limited scope.) —- Taku (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I have just started glossary of real and complex analysis; seems no-brainer. —- Taku (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. That really is a no-brainer, as is Glossary of number theory, which I will start today. In my opinion, Glossary of algebraic topology should be renamed to Glossary of algebraic and geometric topology and geometric topology terms should be added to it. I also think it would make sense to rename Glossary of topology to Glossary of general topology or Glossary of point-set topology. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Why not make Glossary of geometric topology a separate article? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I would support this too. I don't feel strongly either way. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I personally feel geometric topology is a subfield of algebraic topology, and it’s usually easier to maintain fewer articles. But I don’t have a strong opinion on the matter. I second on a move of glossary of topology; in fact, I will just go ahead and do now. —- Taku (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I definitely disagree that geometric topology is a subfield of algebraic topology. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it probably depends on how you define algebraic topology. Do you consider Poincaré conjecture belongs to algebraic topology or geometric topology? For me, it’s a result in algebraic topology more specifically in geometric topology. I do not see it does not belong to algebraic topology; that’s weird (weird because Poincaré is a sort of results you tell laypersons when you explain algebraic topology). That’s what I mean by a subfield. Taku (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Dynkin diagram dark mode

Dark mode seems to break the {{Dynkin}} template. E.g., . -- Tito Omburo (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Verified both with the dark mode gadget (under gadgets in preferences) and with the dark mode appearance menu item (in Vector2020, the goggle icon in the upper top right). In both cases the yellow dots stay yellow dots but all the lines and annotations become invisible. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand the technical things in Wikipedia. But are there other ways to change black to white lines during the use of dark-mode gadgets? Relatedly, I mean, the gadget is beneficial in reducing the amount of light that comes into one's eyes when reading an article. But for some reason, this gadget is already problematic, including PNG vector images, where the background of an image occasionally shows fully dark color with some distorted uncomfortable white dots near the black lines (see image on Square pyramid, or the GIF in Pentagonal pyramid#In polyhedron). I think this is already explained in an essay or whatever it is. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

RfD

Can somebody help me list a new redirect for discussion about Elongated tetragonal disphenoid? There is a discussion the redirect should be deleted, but the result is the wrong venue. Now I have no idea how do I handle this technical thing.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elongated tetragonal disphenoid

Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If you install the Twinkle tool (see instructions at this link), it allows you to conveniently create an RfD (and any other deletion discussion). Once installed, go to the redirect page, press on 'TW' next to the star and click on XfD. You can then input your reasoning and submit the RfD; Twinkle will create the discussion for you. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Are there other ways to propose RfD instead of using Twinkle? This tool seems risky. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Have you seen WP:RFDHOWTO? Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I have seen that, but still got stuck. This is unlike WP:AfD inputting which article you would like to delete. The RfD, according to me, is somewhat the next harder level technical to propose an article. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I listed it at Redirects for discussion here. Felix QW (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Cleaned up the article 7

Hi, I just went through the mathematical facts on the article 7 with a bit of a blowtorch and removed a lot of trivial, not well connected to the number 7, or inaccessible mathematical facts about the number. I might go through other articles like this but I wanted to first get feedback here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good. A lot of our number articles have been accumulating a similar amount of cruft, thanks in part to the efforts of one editor in particular. One small critique: I would be inclined to restore the fact about 7 being the most likely roll for a pair of six sided dice. Tito Omburo (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Definitely a good fact to restore. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It's still there. XOR'easter (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That looks like a good trim overall. I might quibble on the details later, but it seems mostly fine. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

An edit removing that much material deserves a thorough review to ensure there is not any rescueable content that was deleted. Maybe we can even update the guidelines to specify what kind of facts are considered interesting enough to include and what is cruft, considering how much work there is to do on the number pages. @Dedhert.Jr asked about such a guideline in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Interesting_properties. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree, feel free to go in and add back (in a more clear and concise way) some of the facts deleted if there is a consensus to do so. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I, for one, am happy to see cruft removed from our number articles. I was working on that for a while but kind of gave up after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/198 (number) (2nd nomination) last year. But although many of the listed mathematical properties in these articles are crufty and uninteresting, I think a bigger cause of cruft is the use of numbers as identifiers rather than for their numeric value (for instance as numbers of highways, bus lines, etc), which to my mind should go on separate disambiguation pages rather than on articles about the numbers themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: following the positive feedback here, I have gone through other number articles, especially (shudders) 744 (Number). Frankly, I think its fine time we write up a WP:NOTOEIS policy to prevent so many of these "xth number with y property" entries. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time for WP:NOTOEIS, though I don't have enough experience with number pages to know if this is actually necessary.

The most obvious content for removal is of the form "number x is associated with number y, and number y has property a" on pages for number x. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=744_%28number%29&diff=1238550872&oldid=1230509719 for an example. Even if both statements are valid on their own, the fact that number y has property a should still typically not be on the page for number x.

Statements of the form "number x has property a" are, in my opinion, valid if and only if property a is sufficiently interesting, as are statements of the form "number x is the yth number with property a". It's not clear to me that mentioning that it is the yth is usually any more helpful than just saying "number x has property a", unless y is very small. For example, the page for 45 should probably say that 45 is a triangle number, but I can't convince myself that saying it is the 9th triangle number is any more helpful. On the other hand, maybe the page for 3 should say that 3 is the first non-even prime. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a guideline might say that OEIS is a reliable source but it cannot be used to establish notability of a fact. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

My personal inclination is that a number appearing in an OEIS entry is only worth mentioning if the sequence is "nice", "core" (of central importance to some topic), or "hard" (which often means that it comes from an unsolved problem). Because the source is reliable but intentionally rather indiscriminate, we should focus our attention on the subset of it that is marked as more interesting than the rest. Or, in other words, we should follow the source when it comes to emphasis. XOR'easter (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

We might get almost the same effect by only mentioning properties or sequences that have bluelinked Wikipedia articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds plausible. XOR'easter (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I think OEIS needs to be treated with caution, essentially as a WP:PRIMARY source. Tito Omburo (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

See the discussion now at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#WP:NOTOEIS. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this problem being related to OEIS, do we have to check again whether OEIS is questionably reliable? This was discussed when I was reviewing 69 (number) to become GA. Maybe, just maybe, just in case, some points of view can be included to support the new additional guidelines we have discussed right now. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In my view, OEIS is entirely reliable; its edits go through a very strict hierarchy of multiple reviewers, much like a peer-reviewed journal. This process has led it to be much less error-prone than many other sources such as Wikipedia or (worse) MathWorld. What it does not provide is depth of coverage of individual numbers, such as would be needed for WP:GNG-based notability. And because the choice to include a sequence is WP:ROUTINE, it does not tell us much about the notability of individual sequences. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. XOR'easter (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think OEIS is reliable (though not a good indicator of notability). Mathwriter2718 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a related discussion (also opened by @Allan Nonymous) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Help_remove_WP:CRUFT_on_number_articles!. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The article 7 has a long but nowhere near complete section (previously titled "History", which I moved to 7 § Numeral shape) about the way the glyph is drawn in various countries and historical periods. This seems off topic or at least out of scope for an article about the number 7 per se. Should there be dedicated articles about individual numerals and the history of their visual representation in various written number systems? (While we are at it, {{Infobox number}} is an egregious waste of space.) –jacobolus (t) 03:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have a section about how 7 is drawn in the article for 7. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 10:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

If I may stick my nose in here: user @Allan Nonymous seems to be edit warring on a number of number pages. Reviewing the edit history for number one, I see the removal of all interesting and spicey mathematical facts, leaving behind a bland, tasteless and boring section on math. Whatever your views on cruft may be, the reality is that math is widely misunderstood in Western Culture, often taken to be "boring". Most of us here have the opposite experience: we know how interesting, exciting and even mind-boggling it is. To take the numbers articles, and remove everything that is mathematically interesting and exciting from them just reinforces the ugly stereotype that "math is boring". Let's not do this. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, foo. I now see that some of this is related to the histrionics from User:Radlrb, above, in the discussion about number 1234. While not a fan of histrionics, there are the unresolved questions of "what makes mathematics interesting?" and "how should enthusiastic compilations of facts about numbers be treated in Wikipedia?" For example, looking at the dozens (hundreds?) of articles on Lie algebra theory, we see that they are often extensive compendiums of factoids and trivia, but we have no problem with that content. We enjoy things like Jacques's titilating Tits buildings. But the trivia and factoids added & removed for 1234? Not so much, it seems. Part of me wants to encourage amateur enthusiasts. A different part of me says "take it to youtube if you think it's interesting." Beats me. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Lie algebra pages, but I routinely find mathematical articles on Wikipedia that are very short on context, history, and basic explanation but have long lists of obscure trivial formulas etc. I for one would be very happy to see some of that cruft cleaned up and the space used for material that would be reasonably found in a well written survey paper. –jacobolus (t) 02:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Obscure factoids are fine if there exist reliable secondary sources. But for a lot of these number edits, the only source for some property is OEIS, and often it's a "second order" property that requires combining two OEIS entries, or counting the number of things in an OEIS entry. OEIS is a primary source, and this kind of original research is expressly forbidden (and specifically called out at WP:PRIMARY). Tito Omburo (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that the most pressing problem is not obscurity but OR. I think the introduction of the term "cruft" to these discussions might have lead us to focus in the wrong direction. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

To take the numbers articles, and remove everything that is mathematically interesting and exciting from them just reinforces the ugly stereotype that "math is boring". Let's not do this. Yep. Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm more than happy to go through anything at 1 which is deemed unsuitable but this was GA quality content. Polyamorph (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

but this was GA quality content Meh! Still lack of sources. Demoted to C-class per both WP:QUALITY and this assessment project. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about some of the prose I added, not the article as a whole. Polyamorph (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Optimisation under uncertainty

I've noticed that we have a few articles related to it (Stochastic optimization, Robust optimization) but there is no article which gives a general overview of the topic. Do you think it would make sense to create it? Would it be better to describe methods like chance constraints programming in a that article or to add them to Stochastic optimization? Alaexis_¿question? 16:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I've created an article about chance constrained programming for a start, I'd be grateful if someone could review it. Alaexis_¿question? 07:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Presently, it is too abstract to make sense to me. Please, add at least one simple example and show how it fits the abstract model. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll try to add something over the next few days. Alaexis_¿question? 19:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Does this project cover numeral systems?

I was having a similar discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers, but they didn’t have a clear answer yet –it would be great if someone could make it’s more clear. Legendarycool (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If you run into conflict or some other difficulty in articles about numeral systems, you can certainly bring discussion here for more eyes. Is there something specific you are interested in / working on? –jacobolus (t) 00:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No nothing at the moment, just for future reference. Legendarycool (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

TFL List of Johnson solids

Participants of this member are allowed to give opinions on whether the article List of Johnson solids is submitted on a given date. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Equation in andriod dark mode

A couple of users complain that equations in boxes are not viewable on Android in dark mode. The highlighting of the box is a nice-to-have. Is there any workaround short of removing the template? Johnjbarton (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, turns out the template is "Equation box 1" (ugh) and there are some hints about dark mode issues. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I partly fixed this issue, but it turns out this template is mainly used in physics articles. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Another problem is {{Dynkin}}. Tito Omburo (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Skolem's Paradox

Hello WikiProject Mathematics. Recently I noticed that the article Skolem's paradox had very few inline citations, so I decided to fix the refs and tweak some things. Now I've been working on it enough that I'd like to take it to GA review, but I would really appreciate if anyone could read through it first, especially someone with the knowledge to verify the "The result and its implications" section. I think that the first "formal" explanation of the paradox in that section is a bit weak. Thanks, Pagliaccious (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hilbert system#Requested move 20 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hilbert system#Requested move 20 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Uncited and vague statement at Trigonometric functions

This line in Trigonometric functions is tagged for temporal vagueness and needing a reference: The modern trend in mathematics is to build geometry from calculus rather than the converse. Is this remark actually true, and if so, is it worth saying in that spot? It seems to me that talking of a singular "trend" in mathematics is likely to be unsupportable. If one is doing coordinate geometry, one might found it upon properties of the real numbers as developed in real analysis, which is the sophisticated version of/groundwork for/elective taken after calculus. But to a reader for whom geometry is a prereq to calculus, this statement is probably rather puzzling. XOR'easter (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems more or less right, but may be unnecessary here, and could be significantly elaborated. Our description both here and at trigonometry and history of trigonometry is extremely incomplete. As for when this occurred, as concerns trigonometry per se this approach more or less originates with Euler, but picked up steam with Fourier series and then efforts to make them more rigorous in the 19th century, and by studies of elliptic functions, &c. With respect to geometry more generally, I'd also say this is a trend, with pure mathematicians treating geometry as founded in analysis (and its offshoots of topology and set theory), more and more over time starting in the 18th century but since the 20th century almost completely. You could extend this general trend earlier if comparing the gradual substitution of coordinates and analytic geometry in preference to Greek definitions and "synthetic" methods. –jacobolus (t) 00:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I've given it a go, but I think the article needs some organizing. Also, there is no mention of asymptotes. Tito Omburo (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure the gesture toward G. H. Hardy is any more helpful to readers than the previous vague handwave about trends away from geometry. I'd just cut those prefatory sentences and discuss the broader context more thoroughly in the history section and in history of trigonometry.

This and related articles could definitely use organizing. There could also be separate articles about tangent (trigonometry) and secant (trigonometry) to go along with sine and cosine, which would leave more room for discussing more specific history, applications, etc. –jacobolus (t) 05:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

A problem with the previous vagueness is that it was an unreferenced point of view. Also, the assertion that there are "two ways" to define the trigonometric functions was flat out wrong. Hardy lists four, not including the first one described in the article (which I found in Bartle and Sherbert). Tito Omburo (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

A minor point: I don't understand why there's so much name-dropping/attribution in your addition. One can write "there is a problem with geometry as a definition.[ref: hardy] there are mutliple modern approaches to fix this: (1)(2)(3)(4).[refs:hardy, bartle-sherbert]" What is added by announcing at the beginning of these sentences that the references at the end of the sentence are written by Hardy and by Bartle--Sherbert? --JBL (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not married to the wording, but it seems like this is the basic content and sources that should be there. Tito Omburo (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This discussion might better be moved to talk:trigonometric functions, but @Tito Omburo you should give a source for "amplitude function", "method of amplitudes", etc. These are extremely rare names I have never heard of after spending many hundreds of hours researching the specific topic of the trigonometric half-tangent, and can't find any mention of in a google scholar search. –jacobolus (t) 21:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's just the amplitude of $x+iy$, but I'll get rid of the neologism. I thought I had seen this in Bourbaki's real variables, but now it seems I was mistaken. Tito Omburo (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

"Build geometry from calculus"? What is being referred to here? Michael Hardy (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that The modern trend in mathematics is to build Euclidean geometry from calculus rather than the converse. is generally true, but that the more general statement is false. I'm having trouble coming up with a replacement that is both accurate and concise enough to be in the lead. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This statement is basically true from the perspective of a differential geometer, but not from the perspective of an algebraic geometer. I think this statement should be expanded upon or removed because it is just way too vague to be helpful. In the context of trig, it might be more helpful to say that nowadays people define trig functions using calculus and then define angles using trig functions. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Convex polyhedron

The article Convex polyhedron is currently under the article's redirection Convex polytope. Our articles have several type of convex polyhedrons: Platonic solid, Archimedean solid, Catalan solid, deltahedron, Johnson solid, and many more. The article convex polyhedron should have redirected into Polyhedron#Convex polyhedra. It seems convex polytope describes the generalization concept. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll do this change, since readers interested in convex polyhedra need not know dimensions higher than 3. D.Lazard (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"Multiplicity of a restricted root" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Multiplicity of a restricted root has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 21 § Multiplicity of a restricted root until a consensus is reached. 136.152.209.125 (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Rhombic icosahedron and Springer

The Springer source [1] states that it is false in our Wikipedia that rhombic icosahedron is the dual polyhedron of a pentagonal gyrobicupola. I am surprised this fact still exists nowadays. Any thoughts? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The Springer source is correct. The rhombic icosahedron has adjacent degree-5 and degree-3 vertices, so the dual should have adjacent pentagons and triangles, as shown in the figure in the Springer source. The pentagonal gyrobicupola has the correct numbers of faces of each type but incorrect adjacencies; its pentagons and triangles are not adjacent. I will remove this mistake from our article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)