Wikipedia talk:Writing about math

General Discussion

I have started this guideline on writing mathematics articles. I believe that a good Wikipedia guideline on such topic would help improve many math articles. I need help from other mathematicians on how to improve it. Let's discuss. --Ineffable3000 05:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This policy is different from WP:MSM since it does not focus as much on the notation. --Ineffable3000 23:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

But what does it add to the large part of WP:MSM that does not deal with notation?  --Lambiam^Talk 00:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mostly organization and necessity for proofs. --Ineffable3000 02:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this proposal is riddled with problems. People already have a good notion of what a good mathematics article should look like (cf WP:MSM). This proposed guideline does not help clarify that in the least. It adds to the cruft of guidelines, policy, etc. that exists on Wikipedia with no tangible benefit. Also, the notion of blindly adding proofs is kind of naive, and the explanation of what is a "long" proof doesn't help. It also seems to try and do too much: notability is covered and discussed (in a manner I disagree with). There are also remarks about what a conjecture, proof, or theorem is, that reflect personal bias. These don't seem necessary. --C S (Talk) 01:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are meant to standardize Wikipedia. Proofs are necessary in math. I defined "long proof" by space (in kb). Propose how I can change it to make it better. I am thinking about merging this policy into WP:MSM as an ammendment. What is your opinion on that? And I used official definitions for conjectures, proofs, and theorems. Where do you see personal bias? --Ineffable3000 02:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no comment on your first two sentences as they are irrelevant to my comments. Defining a long proof by kb is silly. A short proof can be made long and wordy. A long proof can be greatly abbreviated and condensed. Of what relevance is how many kb it is? As for the bias (a very minor complaint to the other ones), there is a "formalist" slant to the proposal.

I see nothing of value that can be merged into the MSM. I think this was very ill-conceived. As suggested by KSmrq, you should have taken an effort to have learned the content of prior discussions and what consensus exists on these various issues. --C S (Talk) 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Proofs are necessary in math, but Wikipedia is not a journal of mathematics. As an encyclopedia, it is sufficient for us to note that something has been proved (if it is), and reference a reliable source where that proof is presented or discussed (barring controversy regarding the proof -- there's obviously more to say there about, say, the four-color theorum or Fermat's last). Serpent's Choice 05:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mathematics journal only because mathematics journals are primary/secondary sources. Wikipedia targets people of all interest areas. Extra information never hurts. For example, there exists a page with the Proof of Bertrand's postulate. Novice mathematicians will just look at the main page but more advanced students will look at the proof page as well. If you are going to write an article, why not write a good detailed article with proofs, history, .... --Ineffable3000 06:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that extra information never hurts. It can make it much more difficult to find the more important information one wants to convey. It can be wrong or badly written, causing other associated information to lose credibility. Adding it or fixing others' additions of it can cause editors to spend time that might be more valuably spent elsewhere. If extra information never hurt, there would be no need for WP's notability policy. Further, "extra information never hurts" is a very bad reason for mandating that the extra information be included. More generally, I don't see the purpose of writing this guideline: are you trying to clarify existing policy (in which case what about the existing policy do you find unclear) or to change the policy (in which case what problem are you trying to fix)? —David Eppstein 07:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

These are good questions. Unless there are good answers, I think a {{rejected}} tag should be added. --C S (Talk) 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of difference in intent between this proposal and the existing WP:MSM, and I would rather not see a proliferation of similar policies. My preference would be to upgrade the existing WP:MSM with some of the content from this proposal if necessary, but not to create an entirely separate guideline. capitalist 04:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That is what I would like to do as well. --Ineffable3000 04:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving this to a subpage of the existing MOS guideline or its talkpage to make it clearer that it's a proposal to be merged. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion this proposal is superfluous and a waste of our time. I disagree with the one item that is a departure in substance from the existing WP:MSM. If things should be changed to those, propose and discuss them on the talk page of WP:MSM, and not by introducing a largely overlapping guideline that then needs to be merged, with all resulting interpretation problems.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Proofs

I disagree with inclusion of proofs in most cases in articles. Proofs seem to fall into one of two categories: primary sources, showing how something was originally done, and teaching tools, showing people why something is true. Either one is an excessive detail for an encyclopedia unless we're writing about something to do with the proof itself--we can tell people a formula without deriving it right there, and thereby cut straight to what they want to know. They're more appropriate for a teaching textbook than a reference, and so they should go in wikibooks. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You can argue the same way that the mathematical formula is primary source. --Ineffable3000 17:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In a way, Yes. We include short primary sources, like the text of John 3:16, but we don't include whole copies of UN resolutions or the Treaty of Versailles--we quote selectively to convey the essential points. If we can write a concisee prose sketch of the proof with the important points, why do we need to write out every line? Leave that for a specialist source; we're a general reference. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether a proof is included should be decided on a case-by-case basis on its merits. There should not be a suggestion in any guidelines that every article on a mathematical statement that has been proved must contain a proof. An obligation to include every essentially different proof is totally unworkable.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Feit-Thompson theorem? Should that contain a proof? (Rhetorical question. Obviously it should not.) Michael Hardy 02:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not? If the proof is too long, the policy says that the proof should be summarized (which it is). --Ineffable3000 04:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rejected?

I declined speedy deletion of the proposal in light of the discussion here, which is obviously about the proposal. I'd suggest tagging it with {{rejected}} instead of deleting it.--Kchase T 09:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Skimmed this page and tagged it.--Kchase T 11:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)