Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageDiscussionContentAssessmentParticipantsResources

Fuzzy set

[edit]

There was a surprising amount of references / further reading to predatory journals in this article, which I've purged. I think what remains is mostly OK, but I'm no expert on fuzzy sets, so a second look wouldn't hurt.

I also notice that there's remaining reference to Florentin Smarandache about "Neutrosophic fuzzy sets" there too. I haven't touched it, but it may be unwarranted/undue/craycray stuff.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This and fractional calculus are areas popular with the people who publish in predatory journals. Probably the references reflect that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzzy review for fuzzy sets.... XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I invent fuzzy fractional calculus? It's an operator that returns something of the order of the regular integral, to the nth power of the integral . Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar already reports some 329 papers on fuzzy fractional calculus, in journals of such unimpeachable quality as Chaos, Solitons, & Fractals, the Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, MDPI Mathematics, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, and here I thought I could outcrank the cranks. I suppose I could always claim this came to me through divine revelation and 'publish' via vixra. But more seriously, wrt neutrosophic fuzzy sets, is that undue/fringe, or was Smarandache on something valid? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would nuke it. JBL (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if Wikipedia would be improved if there were a bot that automatically removes recently added predatory sources and replaces the citations with [citation needed]. Probably would get into a lot of edit wars. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bot are bad for this, because there will always be 'So and so published this widely reported weirdo idea in Journal of Nonsense, a predatory journal.' But also predatory is a rather ill-defined term. There's a spectrum of shitiness, and where exactly the line is drawn is subjective. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can always check WP:CITEWATCH and WP:UPSD for help finding garbage publications though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy logic is not logic. It is bogus. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Alfred North Whitehead

[edit]

Alfred North Whitehead has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With nobody stepping up to improve the article or push back against the concerns raised on the reassessment page (and I am not volunteering to do either of those things myself) this appears headed for delisting. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question...

[edit]

Silly question, and while this maybe isn't directly project related, our PEMDAS article doesn't seem to answer it. I stumbled upon this problem on an random forum, and there are two clans for answers

(inner exponent priority A)

and

(outer exponent priority B)

I'm pretty sure the correct answer is A otherwise the multiplication of exponent rules wouldn't work, but I haven't ever seen any textbook/class/etc. address order of exponents specifically. Does anyone have such a resource/reference? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Order_of_operations#Serial_exponentiation. B is the usual. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason B is usual is that A can be expressed more directly as . —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I see... Interesting. I would have assumed the other way for the usual. I also see it's arbitrary/varies with implementation. Not sure why I overlooked that section. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with special character titles

[edit]

Just noting a rather mundane observation that μ operator appears to be one of the only articles with a (Greek) special character in the name, rather than its anglicization. Only other exception I could find is Ξ function. Tule-hog (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic

[edit]

Hello! Is there anyone willing to help me improve the article An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic? Thank you! P.S. I did not find a WikiProject on Logic, so Math is the closest relative! :) MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to point you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy as the other close relative, but you appear to have already found it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any professional logicians here? MathKeduor7 (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested in improving the article: Take a look at the topic "An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic. How to find book reviews?" at David Eppstein's user talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Eppstein&oldid=1267247169

Following suggestions of David Eppstein, the article is now much better. Everyone is welcome to participate in the editing. MathKeduor7 (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up improving the article. I am currently not in a position to do so. MathKeduor7 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The work you've done looks good! Tule-hog (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could give a go at it. My field of expertise isn't in non-classical logic, but I have created multiple articles in other areas of mathematics and computer science—would that be alright? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys!!! Yes, sure: Wikipedia:Be bold! MathKeduor7 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was greatly improved by GregariousMadness!!! Thank you so much. ^^ MathKeduor7 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! No problem at all, it looks like a fun read! I'm going to be reading it over the new few months for sure. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic. MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diameter proposed merge

[edit]

Our diameter articles used to be a mess in which all diameter-related topics were relegated to a subsection of the article on diameter of a circle. I just took some effort over the past few weeks to split some of them out into separate articles. Now User:fgnievinski wants to undo that and merge some of my newly-split articles back together. Please join the discussion at Talk:Diameter of a set. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transformation rules

[edit]

Is the intent for the series of articles listed in the template above to focus on classical logic, or is it acceptable to expand them to non-classical cases? Tule-hog (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, there should be separate templates for each. MathKeduor7 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Different templates makes sense, but how about the articles themselves? For example, should implication introduction discuss the natural deductive rule used in classical and intuitionistic logic more explicitly? It seems that may have been partially the intent of List of rules of inference. Tule-hog (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've got me: tough question. MathKeduor7 (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Human translators

[edit]

Is there anyone with time and desire to translate these two pages:

My Russian language skills are of a beginner... :( MathKeduor7 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up the Google translate version is probably not too far off, if you can write clearly in English. Most of the content of the Tumarkin article in particular is pretty straight-forward biographical detail. I like the story at the end. Google translate renders it:

L. A. Tumarkin was also prone to a certain absent-mindedness (often characteristic of mathematicians). In the autumn of 1972, he mixed up the day of the week and, as usual, shortly before the bell, entered room 16-24 of the Main Building of Moscow State University, intending to give a lecture on analysis to first-year students of the Mechanics Department of the Mechanics and Mathematics Department (in reality, at that time, he was supposed to give an analysis lecture to students of the Chemistry Department ). A couple of minutes later, Associate Professor E. B. Vinberg entered the room through another door (his lecture on higher algebra was on the schedule). A silent scene ensued - for some time, both lecturers silently looked at each other, after which Tumarkin became embarrassed and left the room, heading to the Chemistry Department (the chemistry students waited for him for forty minutes that day - no one left); Vinberg silently raised both hands in a triumphant gesture, after which he turned to the board and wrote down the topic of the next lecture.

–jacobolus (t) 02:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, those links can be written more conveniently as ru:Тумаркин, Лев Абрамович and ru:Проблема Гильберта — Арнольда. —Tamfang (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you jacobolus and Tamfang, I've tried to translate a bit, but the language is a problem for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lev_Tumarkin&diff=1268910918&oldid=1268659028 MathKeduor7 (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space

[edit]

In the course of editing Injective tensor product, I noticed that the page Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space is entirely sourced to Trèves' reference on topological vector spaces. If you obtain a copy and go to the relevant part, you find that our article not only contains excessive detail and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK-like style, but very closely parallels the exposition. So there are one source and close paraphrase issues. This also seems to be a content fork: it presents one rather obscure abstract TVS spproach to a topic which is well known in other contexts—essentially, multivariate differential calculus. If it were hypothetically merged into the page about multivariable calculus, it would certainly be undue weight on the TVS approach.

I am wondering if this subject is actually covered to this extent in other RS than Trèves. I couldn't find other sources but am not the best at that. If not, would it be reasonable to open a deletion discussion?

Thanks, ByVarying | talk 20:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI for long timers here. It's another one of those from @Mgkrupa. PatrickR2 (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Equality (mathematics)

[edit]

I've been working on Equality (mathematics) for some time now. My goal is to get it to Good Article status, and I think it's getting to a point that seems possible (It's currently rated C-class). I don't think I'm ready to nominate it yet, but I'd still like some scrutiny from other editors so I can keep working on it.

I'm aware the lead needs to be rewritten after substantial edits to the body, and I haven't really touched the the Isomorphism section yet, but other than that, I'm not sure what else to work on.

(This was the article before my first edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_(mathematics)&oldid=1216998067) – Farkle Griffen (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Great job! My only suggestion would be to tell of the classical example of why we nowadays use congruence instead of equality for line segments of the same length etc in elementary euclidean geometry. I think it's mentioned in the transformation geometry article. Anyways, I think it's not far from GA status. MathKeduor7 (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, If I remember right, Euclid called two figures of equal area as equal figures. This sounds nonsense nowadays, but it made sense back then. So... A history section. MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a drive-by comment that Refs 13 and 27 should be merged into one, and also their formatting seems broken. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multidimensional parity-check code

[edit]

This has been unreferenced for over 15 years. There was a discussion on the talk page 14 years ago that went nowhere. If it's notable, then find and add reliable sources. If not, then please do us a favor and nominate it at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate it yourself. I support this nomination. D.Lazard (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've significantly improved the article with more sources. Could you take a look? Thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 09:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calculators!

[edit]

Following Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-01-15/Technology report I have experimentally added a triangle area calculator to Heron's formula § Example. I'm not entirely convinced this is a good idea, but maybe it can work for other articles about simple formulas. Probably this board is the right place to discuss the pros and cons of doing this in general. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be because of my KaTeX userscript interfering with the page layout, but I can't interact with the "c" field and anything below.
As for it being a good idea, I'm curious why you think it's not. I, for one, think that adding basic interactive functionality to a web encyclopedia can significantly improve understanding of such topics. However, that's just a "first glance" opinion, and I'd love to give it some more thought. /home/gracen/ (they/them) 16:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How would such a thing be verified? Will it raise more questions than it answers? For example, someone idly types in 1, 2, 3 or 1, 1, 3, and they are left with a puzzle rather than knowledge. I suppose we could argue that such puzzles lead to knowledge if they are "solved". Johnjbarton (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the area calculation NaN text to "Not a triangle", which occurs whenever the quantities violate the triangle inequality. It still allows a 0 area for degenerate triangles (which is fine with me, but still plausibly confusing I guess). Does that help? –jacobolus (t) 17:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For verification, I'd argue that, similar to WP:LEADCITE, the formula used in the calculator would have to already be present in the article in one form or another, and restrictions (such as the triangle inequality mentioned above) would also have to be mentioned at least in passing.
As for the actual viability of such widgets in providing knowledge, that's a trickier question. The BMI calculator shown in the Signpost article could be useful in helping readers develop intuition for the relation between the numbers involved, but also could detract from the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia by encouraging readers to use Wikipedia as a universal calculator. I think it comes down to how readers treat the widget: is it supplementary content to the body text (like an explanatory image), or is it just a function of Wikipedia? /home/gracen/ (they/them) 17:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather people say "I used the calculator on Wikipedia" than "I asked ChatGPT." XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For freakin' real. I absolutely hate that people think that predictive text on steroids can perform logical reasoning. /home/gracen/ (they/them) 19:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have mentioned that in implementing the Heron's formula calculator I used a formula from the article described as being more numerically stable than the main formula. But subsequently, someone else changed the code to use the less-stable main formula. I restored the stable formula because the main one was producing very inaccurate results (a=3 b=4 c=6.999 was giving area=0.000, should bave been 0.205), and added a long comment explaining that choice. I don't see a good way to document the formula being used in a reader-visible way. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should include the numerically stable form in the article, perhaps in a later section, with a reference. The calculator should have a ref tag which either links the later section or gives the stable form and its reference. These all add value and would contribute to an editor agreement to include such a calculator. This would be a precedent that sets a good bar for the feature in general. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read what I wrote above more carefully. The numerical stable form was already in the article, in a later section, with a reference. It was already there. That's where I got it from. Calculators do not need ref tags per WP:CALC. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe I need to work on my reading skills. For example I found nothing in WP:CALC which says calculators do not need ref tags. The only things I found were thing like "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." and "In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote." I am proposing that such consensus would be greatly facilitated by a footnote. Personally I would vote against an addition without a footnote per WP:verify. Without the ref, the formula is OR, independent of the application of the formula not being OR. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The most relevant part of the policies and guidelines is probably WP:CALC: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. One of the examples given there is converting units. If a source gives a distance in miles, we can convert it to kilometres (and vice versa). We even have a template, {{convert}}, for doing that automatically. This is in line with the WP:CALC part of the NOR policy because it is easy to check that the calculations are being done correctly, and providing the converted figure doesn't introduce a new meaning on top of what the source says. A calculator like the one at Heron's formula § Example has essentially the same status. Anyone who can do the arithmetic that Heron's formula calls for can check that the calculator gives the same result. Of course, there could well be calculators that are out of line with policy, like a calculator that implements a formula which is only given in a crank paper. But that doesn't make the software tool inherently bad or even a net negative, any more than the ability to cite Physics Essays with {{cite journal}} makes {{cite journal}} a bad idea.
I'm fine with this and would like to see how it develops from here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only clash with anything really is perhaps WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Otherwise, it could be useful in introductory articles (basic geometry, intro-level physics, etc...).
As place I could see this shine is in series (show what the nth term is/sum of the nth first terms is). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My immediate feeling is that while calculators aren't necessarily bad to include, they're not of clear encyclopedic value and I would expect them to be overused by certain kinds of editors. (Similar to my feeling on infoboxes, for example.) Gumshoe2 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That accurately describes my ambivalence as well. I think the articles on which they would be helpful are a strict subset of the articles on which they are likely to be added. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we could add arbitrary javascript-driven SVG widgets I'd love to add some interactive diagrams, but trying to accomplish that via CSS + {{calculator}} alone seems too clunky to really be worth putting much effort into. One thing that could be plausibly valuable is an animation made up of separate images for each frame, with the visible frame selected by a slider control. –jacobolus (t) 03:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a shot: Special:Permalink/1269751262#Example has a figure that updates based on user input using CSS + Calculator. I welcome opinions on the demo and how much potential there is in this sort of thing from the reader perspective. From the editor perspective, indeed it is somewhat of a clunky programming interface. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is cute (and I'm impressed that you got it working decently well here) but trying to read/edit code like this makes me want to puke. I don't think it's a sustainable serious solution for interactive diagrams on Wikipedia, and is not at all in keeping with the goal of "anyone can edit". –jacobolus (t) 07:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they may detract from the encyclopedic material and there is a big danger of overuse by some editors. I don't see a clear value to have this in wikipedia. But there could be links to external sites in the External links section at the end. PatrickR2 (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'n surprised no one has mentioned Wikibooks yet. I don’t know the conventions over there, but this seems like it would be perfect. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Mathematics redesign

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Portal talk:Mathematics#Portal removal about changes in the portal Portal:Mathematics. Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics&oldid=1269766121"