# Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

 This is a discussion page for WikiProject Mathematics This page is devoted to discussions of issues relating to mathematics articles on Wikipedia. Related discussion pages include: /Conventions /Graphics /PlanetMath Exchange /Proofs /Typography /Wikipedia 1.0 Mathematics Portal MoS Mathematics Reference desk (mathematics) (Please ask general questions of interest here). Please add new topics at the bottom of the page and sign your posts.
A Wikipedia ad has been created for this project page
 edit Archives List of all archives 2009: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2010: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2011: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2012: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2013: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2014: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2015: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2016: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2017: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec 2018: Jan · Feb · Mar · Apr · May · Jun · Jul · Aug · Sep · Oct · Nov · Dec

## Experts in logic, to your attention

Talk:Integer sequence#Definable sequences. --Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

## Proposal at village pump on inline math

Note: There's some weird parsing error that showed up when I added [itex] tags in a discussion below. Please go to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) and search for "Rfc: Change default [itex] to be inline". --Trovatore (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on the proposal. Thank you for your attention.--Debenben (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

## Need graph for Bring radical

Could someone with graphing skills please convert this table into a graph? The graph can be seen here (put there by another editor). Thanks. Loraof (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

## Draft:Bivariant theory

There is a deletion discussion that can use the inputs from a third party, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bivariant theory -- Taku (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

## Real number#In physics

What about the "slow motion edit warring" at Real number#In physics? "This approach removes the real number system from its foundational role in physics", really? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph should be rewritten rather than removed. I agree that particular claim is highly dubious. Just because real numbers cannot be represented with exact physical precision does not make them less foundational. A real number is an idealization used for modelling physical phenomena, not something that actually exists in the universe (any more than, say, a "triangle" or "circle" exists). Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

## Controversy at Draft:Walks on ordinals, input sought

I know zero about math academic stuff, so would like to draw the attention of this WP to a draft under review: Draft:Walks on ordinals.

There are allegations that the submitter is attempting to popularize a fringe mathematical theory, which the submitter denies. Could someone more expert take a look at the draft? You can post and sign comments at the top of the draft page itself rather than its Talk, for ease of reading. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The notation used in the draft for sets is non-standard and incoherent. Thus it is virtually impossible to understand what the writer is getting at. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It is definitely not a "fringe theory", but JR is correct that it's hard to understand from the draft exactly what is being discussed. I think there's a typo in this bit:

[...] we'll create a sequence ${\displaystyle C_{\alpha }=\{c_{\alpha }(n):\alpha <\omega \}\subseteq \alpha }$ [...]

[...] we'll create a sequence ${\displaystyle C_{\alpha }=\{c_{\alpha }(n):n<\omega \}\subseteq \alpha }$ [...]

If you understand "ladder systems" (which I really ought to, having spent a year in Toronto, but unfortunately I never really sat down and did the work to figure them out), then I think you might be able to make sense of the text, after fixing the typo. I am not sure what the curvy arrows are about, but again, they might make sense to people who know ladder systems. --Trovatore (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

For reference: ladder systems are defined (among other places) in Section 3 of this paper. --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

## Draft:Distributional calculus

Here is another deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Distributional calculus. -- Taku (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

## Links to DAB pages, Part II

I'm opening this new section so as not to get in the way of archiving #Links to DAB pages. As before, (1) search for "disam" in the article, (2) mark any problems you have solved as {{done}}, and (3) thanks in advance.

I hope that within a month I will have found and posted here every maths article which links to a DAB page – and, more importantly, that you experts will have solved those problems for the benefit of our readers. I find 'em, you fix 'em – this is going well. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

About Arthur Hobbs: the link in the article is to finite mathematics, a disambig page with two entries. The second entry does not link to an article called "finite mathematics," it links to a collection of articles that might correspond to the material in a lower-level college math class called Finite Mathematics. This is exactly the sense in which the link in the Hobbs article is meant. No reasonable disambiguation is possible here. --JBL (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Almost agree. Given the other courses listed I would say that while the course may even be titled finite mathematics, it is most likely a discrete mathematics course and I have changed the link accordingly. To be sure about this we would have to look at the syllabus for the course, but it would be very surprising to list a finite math course as described on the DAB page together with these other discrete math courses.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Looked a little more carefully at TAMU offerings. They offer both a Finite Math and a Discrete Math course. While Hobbs did teach an honors section of Finite Math in his first semester there, he was a mainstay of the Discrete Math course, teaching many sections every year. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
direct links to DAB pages are errors per WP:INTDAB. User:DPL bot picks them up, and they need to be fixed somehow rather than left hanging. Narky Blert (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Wcherowi: "DAB remains best option as a page needs to be written." No it is not, it is a WP:INTDAB error. When I joined WP:DPL, there were something like 38,000 bad links to DAB pages. Determined efforts by that team over the last two years have brought the number down to under 9,000. In 2014, the number was 65,600. Write the goddam article rather than messing us about. Narky Blert (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
You could write the "goddam article" yourself, of course, if the problem of DAB links is a high priority to you personally. Overall, there is no deadline for fixing these sorts of things, and WIkipedia is a volunteer project in which each editor is free to work on the things that they care about. Links to DAB pages may not be a very high priority for all editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Strongly agree: WP:IAR is policy, INTDAB is guideline. For some pages, links to disambig pages are going to be the best option at a given moment in time, and being rude about that is completely ridiculous. --JBL (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here is saying that the problem should never be fixed, of course. Just that, as a matter of priorities, it may not be an emergency that requires urgent action. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
"DAB remains best option as a page needs to be written." I didn't write an article, because I know nothing whatsoever about the topic, and I learnt nothing from the DAB page. Your move. Narky Blert (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Don't be an ass. Your move. --JBL (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Freeze, don't move! would be a legal move to me (besides an apology to the highly cooperative community), undoing a move is simply no option. Furthermore, while I consider eliminating obvious ambiguities a highly laudable task, I think that having even marginally relevant inspirations at hand is useful to a casual, curious, rummaging reader. So reducing DABs: yes, total eradication: no. (I feel legitimated by having done quite a few of damb'ings). Purgy (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
() Seems to me that information criterion could be redirected to Model selection#Criteria (as each of the kinds of information criteria almost always immediately define themselves in terms of model selection, in our articles at least), and each of the summaries of each of the items at the current disambiguation page would make for a nice start to prosifying the section. These are also only partial title matches, another thing which leans me to removing the disambiguation page entirely. (If you need a hatnote regarding the non-mathematical article at Information Criteria, you can add it. That's a WP:DIFFCAPS though... from what I can tell that might actually be the only real ambiguous object, which is the concept in information technology. Maybe there should be a disambig page, one linking to information criterion (statistics), which itself should be a redirect to the model selection article, and one information criteria (information technology), with the content of Information Criteria.) --Izno (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
In fact, I've just done the latter. Should improve the articles. --Izno (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

## Category:Pseudoconvex minimization has been nominated for discussion

Category:Pseudoconvex minimization and 2 related categories, all of which are within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

## Several MfD discussions

Here are some new MfD discussions that might interest the members of the project.

Taku (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

One more

Taku (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Unproductive discussion
@Taku, assuming these all are based on the same mindset of list-keepers (Hasteur), Wiki-lawyers (Legacypac), and other pillar-masons, and especially, considering all that advertorial stuff (Tabor rotation) and other plain rubbish in WP, I just want to tell you that I personally share your stance that your interest in these drafts (and be they unedited for even a good while) outweigh their interest to have cleared lists and legalesely fulfilled policies and guidelines. However, given my level of expertise in these topics, my experience with the massive, networked reaction (leaving threats and impertinent insinuations (involved admin!) on my TP, and even canvassing a native German speaker to "explain" things to me) of the opponents, and the total amount of my informal obligation to WP, I sadly will not involve myself once more in this unlucky bureaucratic vendetta.
In parts I have been nudged to the above by the cavalier reply "Write the goddam article rather than messing us about." by Narky Blert in response to extensive cooperativeness with his agenda. Purgy (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
And all of this would be gone if Taku would "Write the goddam article rather than messing about" as you curtly put it. As long as the page is being improved I'm more than happy to give Taku his space, but that requires improvement more frequently than 6 months, or giving the drafts to the community at large and accepting the community's decision on it by putting the drafts in mainspace. I'm fine either way, but letting these partial ideas languish in the shared draft space without improvement is a complete non-starter and a fundamental misuse of the community's resources. Hasteur (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
(For clarification, I’m not permitted to respond to this (especially “requires improvement ... 6 months”) without risking a ban. — Taku (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC))
Not good enough Taku, and you know that Hasteur (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Hasteur, you of all editors should know that according to the wording of G13 it's any edit to a page (minus bots/tagging) that resets the 6-month clock. Taku is under no obligation to "significantly" alter the page to keep it out from under the Sword of Damocles. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac: And if we see that users are consistently changing one byte alone the page bets brought to MFD on the same grounds as the nominating statement. So try again. Hasteur (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
If you're going to call out people for their assumptions of bad faith, you could try avoiding such assumptions yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Not to give a false impression, I don’t mind MfD nominations that much but I do mind the misinformation. In order not to be explicit, I would say this reminds me of a charge that there were a wide spread voting fraud, that millions of votes were cast illegally in the last presidential election from some guy in Washington D.C. If there were/was/is such a wide spread voting fraud, that would be of a great concern..., indeed. — Taku (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
If you're going to make a Donald Trump inspired Godwin's Law invocation it's clear you're unwilling to debate in good faith. Every single one of your objections has bee disproven with fact, our objections are sustained by policy and community consensus. Every side always presents it's best argument and conveniently leaves out items that don't help it's case. Hasteur (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I don't think we are debating anything; rather you're taking advantages of my restrictions on the policy discussions to spread false information (which unfortunately some un-clued users take face-values). So my analogy is spot-on, I think. Wikipedia unfortunately lacks a good mechanism of removing false information on policies; I guess that would be my argument and you're proving my point. -- Taku (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Glad to see Trump-ism's mantra of "Fake News" has spread overseas as well. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it fake news so drop it unless you want me to file a new discsussion seeking to expand your restrictions to a full siteban. Hasteur (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

One more: