Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics
edit  Frequently asked questions (FAQ) 

To view an explanation to the answer, click on the [show] link to the right of the question.
Are Wikipedia's mathematics articles targeted at professional mathematicians?
No, we target our articles at an appropriate audience. Usually this is an interested layman. However, this is not always possible. Some advanced topics require substantial mathematical background to understand. This is no different from other specialized fields such as law and medical science. If you believe that an article is too advanced, please leave a detailed comment on the article's talk page. If you understand the article and believe you can make it simpler, you are also welcome to improve it, in the framework of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
Why is it so difficult to learn mathematics from Wikipedia articles?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be pedagogic treatments of their topics. Readers who are interested in learning a subject should consult a textbook listed in the article's references. If the article does not have references, ask for some on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Wikipedia's sister projects Wikibooks which hosts textbooks, and Wikiversity which hosts collaborative learning projects, may be additional resources to consider.
See also: Using Wikipedia for mathematics selfstudy Why are Wikipedia mathematics articles so abstract?
Abstraction is a fundamental part of mathematics. Even the concept of a number is an abstraction. Comprehensive articles may be forced to use abstract language because that language is the only language available to give a correct and thorough description of their topic. Because of this, some parts of some articles may not be accessible to readers without a lot of mathematical background. If you believe that an article is overly abstract, then please leave a detailed comment on the talk page. If you can provide a more downtoearth exposition, then you are welcome to add that to the article.
Why don't Wikipedia's mathematics articles define or link all of the terms they use?
Sometimes editors leave out definitions or links that they believe will distract the reader. If you believe that a mathematics article would be more clear with an additional definition or link, please add to the article. If you are not able to do so yourself, ask for assistance on the article's talk page.
Why don't many mathematics articles start with a definition?
We try to make mathematics articles as accessible to the largest likely audience as possible. In order to achieve this, often an intuitive explanation of something precedes a rigorous definition. The first few paragraphs of an article (called the lead) are supposed to provide an accessible summary of the article appropriate to the target audience. Depending on the target audience, it may or may not be appropriate to include any formal details in the lead, and these are often put into a dedicated section of the article. If you believe that the article would benefit from having more formal details in the lead, please add them or discuss the matter on the article's talk page.
Why don't mathematics articles include lists of prerequisites?
A wellwritten article should establish its context well enough that it does not need a separate list of prerequisites. Furthermore, directly addressing the reader breaks Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. If you are unable to determine an article's context and prerequisites, please ask for help on the talk page.
Why are Wikipedia's mathematics articles so hard to read?
We strive to make our articles comprehensive, technically correct and easy to read. Sometimes it is difficult to achieve all three. If you have trouble understanding an article, please post a specific question on the article's talk page.
Why don't math pages rely more on helpful YouTube videos and media coverage of mathematical issues?
Mathematical content of YouTube videos is often unreliable (though some may be useful for pedagogical purposes rather than as references). Media reports are typically sensationalistic. This is why they are generally avoided.
Why is wikipedia lagging behind the rest of the world in not creating an article on τ (2π)?
The notability of τ=2π is not yet established. Neither the mathematics community nor the math education community has responded to the proposed new constant in any notable way. τ=2π does not at this point of time meet the criteria of notability as per Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). See also Turn (geometry)#Tau proposal.

This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 15 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. 
WikiProject Mathematics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 21 February 2011. If you wish to get involved with the Signpost, please visit the Newsroom. 
A Wikipedia ad has been created for this project page





Paul Erdős
A question both deep and profound,
Is whether a circle is round:
In a paper by Erdős,
Published in Kurdish,
A counterexample is found.
Author unknown (not me, although I could hazard a guess). I'll be back later with more mathematicsrelated links to DAB pages which require expert attention, I'm collecting another new bunch. Narky Blert (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Cute. Except it doesn't actually rhyme. But oh well. Trovatore (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 There are two different versions of this in
 Singmaster, David; Souppouris, D. J. (1978), "A constrained isoperimetric problem", Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 83 (1): 73–82, doi:10.1017/S030500410005430X, MR 0470577
 Alexanderson, G. L. (September 1981), "An Interview with Paul Erdős", The TwoYear College Mathematics Journal, 12 (4): 249, doi:10.2307/3027072
 I have no idea whether either of them is the original source. There's another mathematical limerick attributed to John Milnor here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 I read the limerick in a book I can't recall (I suspect it was by Ronald Graham but I don't see anything likely). At any rate, the author used the limerick to show how "Erdős" should be pronounced—Erdős rhymes with Kurdish. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 Well, better than it rhymes with overdose or acuerdos, anyway. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 There are two different versions of this in
It wouldn't have occurred to me that anyone would think "Erdős" rhymes with "Kurdish" if I hadn't seen this. I pronounce the "Er" in "Erdős" like "air", rhyming with "chair" and the "ur" in "Kurdish" like the "r" in "ring", and the vowel in the second syllable of "Erdős" like the German "ö", and I make the second syllable of "Erdős" rhyme with "fish". I have no idea what degree of correctness there may be in my pronunciation of the second syllable of "Erdős". Maybe approximate rhymes work better when you hear them that when you read them (maybe except the ones that are standard and expected). Michael Hardy (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 So now I tried Google Translate and it agreed with my pronunciation of "Erdős". Michael Hardy (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 Just as a voice from the Hungarian neighbourhood: I believe the vowel in the second syllable of "Erdős" sounds in Hungary like the vowel part in the first syllable of "Gershwin" I just noticed you could also curse Purgy for the same vowels (cutting off beginning at the rpart) in America, or, better, the first part of the merging of "deux" and "chevaux" in France (cutting off after the shsound; 2CV(apeur) is a famous vintage car there). Purgy (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 Yeah, there aren't going to be any perfect rhymes in English, probably. But English has a tendency to treat vowels in unstressed syllables less distinctively than the ones in stressed syllables, so the ish part doesn't have to be perfect to sound like a rhyme. Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 The approximate rhyme between "dős" and "dish" seems similar to the sort used by German poets. In the Ode to Joy, Friedrich Schiller wrote:
Michael Hardy (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Deine Zauber binden wieder
Was die Mode streng geteilt;
Alle Menschen werden Brüder
Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.
 The approximate rhyme between "dős" and "dish" seems similar to the sort used by German poets. In the Ode to Joy, Friedrich Schiller wrote:
 Yeah, there aren't going to be any perfect rhymes in English, probably. But English has a tendency to treat vowels in unstressed syllables less distinctively than the ones in stressed syllables, so the ish part doesn't have to be perfect to sound like a rhyme. Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 Just as a voice from the Hungarian neighbourhood: I believe the vowel in the second syllable of "Erdős" sounds in Hungary like the vowel part in the first syllable of "Gershwin" I just noticed you could also curse Purgy for the same vowels (cutting off beginning at the rpart) in America, or, better, the first part of the merging of "deux" and "chevaux" in France (cutting off after the shsound; 2CV(apeur) is a famous vintage car there). Purgy (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 Last comment on rhyming:
Ach n"eige", Du schmerzensr"eiche", Dein Antlitz gnäd"ig" meiner Not ...
Gretchen's prayer, noticing to be pregnant; in Faust, J.W.v.Goethe. The quoted parts are taken to rhyme, because the sounds belonging in German to "ei" and "i" are quite neighbored, as are the pronunciations of "g" and "ch" in several regional dialects. I could not call into my awareness any word from the English language that ends in a sound, reminding me directly of how "Erdős" does. Thank you! Purgy (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC) I was aware that Erdős and Kurdish aren't true rhymes; but, hey! it's a limerick, and anything goes.
 As for partrhymes in English, here are a few examples from Byron's Don Juan: laureate, Tory at, ye at; good, food, hood; try, posterity; tongues, wrongs, songs; arise, prophecies, eyes; more, hoar, poor; miscreant, pant, want; vile, smile, toil – and that's just from the first 13 stanzas of a booklength poem. Narky Blert (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 Last comment on rhyming:
Draft:Dixon Algebra
Will someone please review and assess this draft? My first thought was that it was too technical for someone (myself) who has forgotten a lot of higher mathematics in fifty years. (I have forgotten all of the math that I learned in college. I still remember the intermediate algebra, trigonometry, and firstyear calculus that I learned in high school.) On further reading, it appears to be largely original research by Dixon seeking to publish his own research in Wikipedia. So one of my questions is whether this work has already been published in mathematical journals.
Should it be declined as consisting of original research, or should it be declined as needing to be revised to be less difficult to understand, or should it be declined as not being sufficiently notable among mathematicians, or should it be accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 There is a corner of research that aims to shake the Standard Model out of the octonions in some manner. Different people have tried in various ways, all of them related at least a bit. I could be convinced that the topic deserves an article (Quanta Magazine thought so [1], and John C. Baez wrote about it [2]), but I don't think the "Dixon algebra" should be the main focus of it. My inclination is to decline Draft:Dixon Algebra for needing clarification and for lacking notability. It is, at most, one piece of a puzzle — one mathematical construction among several studied in that niche.
 Looking over our page on octonions, it could be expanded, both with the attempts to apply them to physics, and with their successful application in group theory, per Wilson's textbook The Finite Simple Groups (2009), for example. XOR'easter (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 Thank you. I see that it has to do with mathematics that I haven't forgotten because I never learned it in college. To answer the implied question of User:Michael Hardy, the Dixon algebra does appear to be by someone named Dixon, and doesn't say this. I did read about one of the attempts to apply octonions to the Standard Model. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 I cut the draft down to size and made a decentlooking stub of it. I still don't think the Dixon algebra itself rises to the level of wikinotability (it's just one idea in a niche field), but maybe that draft could be merged into something more substantial. XOR'easter (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 Thank you. I see that it has to do with mathematics that I haven't forgotten because I never learned it in college. To answer the implied question of User:Michael Hardy, the Dixon algebra does appear to be by someone named Dixon, and doesn't say this. I did read about one of the attempts to apply octonions to the Standard Model. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Geoffrey Dixon
After brief research, I am still not sure that an article on Dixon algebra passes notability. It definitely won't be understandable by anyone but mathematicians and mathematical physicists. That doesn't in itself mean that there shouldn't be an article. The references are nearly all either by Geoffrey Dixon of the University of New Hampshire, or by Cohl Furey, whose research is largely about octonions. What I think that we need is an article on Geoffrey Dixon, who has made interesting contributions in math and outside math and appears to satisfy academic notability. Dixon appears to be trying to use Wikipedia to publicize his research rather than to publicize himself, which may have to do with being a mathematician. I think that I will decline the draft, but if I am asked to review Draft:Geoffrey Dixon, I think that I will accept it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Modos is now in mainspace
I have moved the draft in the tittle to Modos. I don't have an expertise to properly review it (i.e., can't make sense of it) and thus it can benefit from the attentions from the other editors. Regards.  Taku (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 And now PRODded. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 PROD declined; that was fast. Now at AfD. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Near Square Primes
I came across this in the WP:AFC queue. I'm not sure if this subject qualifies for inclusion. If a member of the project could let me know, that would be great. (Please ping me as I'm not watching this page). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

To K.e.coffman: The topic deserves to be in the main space, but is already present at Landau's problems#Nearsquare primes. As this article section and the draft have essentially the same content, and both articles are very short, I suggest to merge the draft into Landau's problems, and to create a redirect Nearsquare primes linking to this article section. D.Lazard (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 Content merged, redirect created. XOR'easter (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Featured quality source review RFC
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. Izno (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)