Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Gen Rel Intro

Introduction to general relativity has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Tangent between two circles proposed for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tangent_between_two_circles. VG ☎ 13:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been re-named as Tangent lines to circles and updated. Everyone here is encouraged to contribute! :) Willow (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Wikipedia for Schools

The 2008/9 Schools Wikipedia is now available for browsing and feedback is welcome. Downloads start in two weeks so final improvements are possible; this is a big project with millions of users so it is worth doing well. The list of maths topics included is here. We have also included the Maths Portal. The subject list is quite a long list but feedback on what should be included or left out would be good. Also ideally if someone could split the 270 articles into two of three sub lists (preferably Pure Maths, Applied Maths and Statistics or something like that) it would help. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection. --BozMo talk 13:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on the article Non-Newtonian calculus

Please help to resolve this dispute. The articles Non-Newtonian calculus and Multiplicative calculus have come under sustained attack for including references to a self-published work which the opposing editors consider to be invalid as a reference.

The reference concerned is: Grossman and Katz. Non-Newtonian Calculus, ISBN 0912938013, Lee Press, 1972.

Points against:

• The work is self-published.

Points for:

• The work is cited and used as a basis for the peer-reviewed journal articles:

• • Meginniss. "Non-Newtonian calculus applied to probability, utility, and Bayesian analysis", Proceedings of the American Statistical Association: Business and Economics Statistics, 1980.

• • Bashirov, Misirli Kurpinar, and Ozyapici. "Multiplicative calculus and its applications", Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 2008.

• The article Non-Newtonian calculus is based mainly on this work. To remove its main reference is equivalent to destroying the article.

• The page WP:SPS says "a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source." The papers above might not specifically use the word "authoritative" but why would they? The papers were not written for the purpose of conforming to the language of wikipedia's guidelines. Let's not be pedantic here - this is not about the precise words that the papers use. This is about the meaning that the papers convey. It's clear that these papers are based on the work Non-Newtonian Calculus. The work Non-Newtonian Calculus should therefore be valid as a reference.Delaszk (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please read the entire relevant paragraph; I've been quoting the first sentence, while the inclusionists have quoting the last (except for the explanatory phrase, which makes deprecates it.)

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source.

• — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
• And the appropriate venue is probably WP:RSN or WT:RS, rather than here or the article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well WP:RSN suggests using the talk page of a wikiproject, so here we are.

Another point in favour of allowing Non-Newtonian calculus as a reference is that it is a very short book, it doesn't actually say all that much, there is not much there to verify in the first place and as such the above papers should be ample verification of its reliabilty.Delaszk (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally would not accept a self published article or book. If it is worthy of being a peer reviewed publication then why isn't it one? I could write a book on why the moon is made of cheese, and then publish it. Before you could say "hang on a minute" all the moon landing conspiracy theorists would be saying "The landings could not have taken place for the moon is made of cheese and could never support the weight of a landing module." Self published work is non-reviewed original research! As for Delaszk's point that "it is a very short book", if my book consisted of the line "The moon is made of cheese. QED" would that make it more reliable? Maybe I missing something here... if I am then please tell me.  Declan Davis   (talk)  20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"The moon is made of cheese. QED" - is this backed by third party journal articles? Answer -No. The answer is no, so why did you even ask the question? Hmm ? It is hard to assume good faith on your part when you say things like that. Your misdirection is just an underhanded trick.

"The moon is made of cheese. QED" - is this backed by third party journal articles? Answer -No.

Non-Newtonian calculus - is this backed by third party journal articles? Answer -Yes!

User:Declan Davis overlooks what I said in my previous post in favour of making jokes. Those jokes are engaging in misdirection. The comments are completely overlooking the main fact which is that the two papers above that cite and are based on the book, are in peer reviewed journals. ""The moon is made of cheese. QED" would that make it more reliable?"" - yes if a peer-reviewed journal agreed with that statement. Of course not that any journal article would and yet journal articles were based on Non-Newtonian calculus, so your mooncheese is a complete misdirection. You say: "Self published work is non-reviewed original research!" - actually no it's not - it's not original research if there are peer-reviewed journal articles based on it.

The wikipedia editors who are arguing against inclusion are being absurd with their anti-selfpublishing hysteria, that completely ignores this case, in favour of unthinking, dogmatic, indiscriminate application of guidelines regardless of the particular situation.Delaszk (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Delaszk is taking things too seriously. I could have replaced "the moon is made with cheese" with any other non-humorous yet equally incorrect statement. I just thought that the moon comment might shed light upon the rediculous things that can, and will, be self-published. Okay, so I didn't agree with one of Delaszk's points. That doesn't mean I attacked him, or was disrespectful to him. This is a democracy, people have freedom of speech. It's nothing personal! My point was that anyone can write anything and have it published themselves. As for third party journals, well someone sees that something's been published and they think "well, there's a reliable source". How many people check if a book has been self published or not? In my opinion it's a cyclical argument. I thinkDelaszk may need to relax a little. His unfriendly reply doesn't help anyone. It makes him angry and me sad. You get my point. If you don't agree with it then please don't be so heavy handed in your replies. This is the problem with Wikipedia, as I have been discovering. I think I'll leave it at that. All the best.  Declan Davis   (talk)  22:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Self published work is non-reviewed original research! The third party journals based on that work are not original. But the original work is, ermm, original.  Declan Davis   (talk)  22:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

p.p.s. There may be a conflict of interests with Delaszk commenting on this discussion. He sites the non-Newtonian article as one of his favorites. (Again, nothing personal .Delaszk, just being objective).  Declan Davis   (talk)  22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you are being completely objective then you will stick to arguing the merits or otherwise of the case rather than bringing my interest into the discussion. If you don't want to get personal then argue the case, not the person.Delaszk (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the COI guidelines, and replace "article" with "discussion page". You are clearly a big fan of the article and as such will fight tooth and nail to keep it, and its sources, standing. This, for me, offeres a conflict of interest with respect to the discussion. Sorry. Declan Davis   (talk)  22:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You are seeking to prevent me from discussing this article, rather than engage the arguments. Shame on you. Back to the discussion - All research is original when it is originally made otherwise it wouldn't be research. It ceases to breach WP:OR when third-parties take up the baton.Delaszk (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Since you say I'm clearly a big fan - it should be noted that I have bent over backwards to be neutral over this article. It was me who put the "Criticism" section into the article. It was me who included references to Volterra and others rather than letting it appear Grossman and Katz were the first to think of multiplicative calculus. Similarly I spun-off multiplicative calculus into its own separate article rather than have it appear multiplicative calculus was developed purely as a result of Grossman and Katz's work. I may be interested in it but I have been neutral.Delaszk (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I started of making my point about the edit war: please scroll up. That was what got you so annoyed. I had to stray from the point in an effort to calm you down in the hope you would take any offence.  Declan Davis   (talk)  15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your point was that you would not accept a self-published source. You also made the point that being short was not a reason for accepting it, as if this was in response to what I had said. This is a misdirection, because shortness of itself being a reason is not what I said. I responded to this misdirection in a forceful manner in order to clearly highlight that the example given was not comparable to the self-published source under discussion. I was not offended by your point, I was arguing against it. The rest of my reply that you called 'heavy handed' was my assessment of the discussion as a whole that has taken place on the article talk pages over the last few weeks.Delaszk (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How I wish my AfD had succeeded! I assumed that obscure nonsense was obviously non-notable...

Delaszk, if there is an edit war, you ought to be able to point to the problematic edits. I've been following the article and commenting on the talk page, and I've seen no evidence at all of an edit war (which, I'm sure you know, has a precise meaning on Wikipedia). I do not believe there is one; if you disagree, please point out the edits! Ozob (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

When I said edit war I was referring to the insertion of verifiability tags on every occurrence in the article of the reference to the book "Non-Newtonian calculus", followed by deletion of those tags, followed by reinsertion of those tags, followed by accusations of vandalism. If this does not qualify as an edit war as such, then it still qualifies as a dispute. To continue in the efforts to be neutral I have rewritten the opening sentence of the article to make it clear that this is a phrase used by GandK rather than a commonly used term. The article is now mainly about GandK's work and as such the book is the main reference.Delaszk (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A bigger issue with the article is that it doesn't conform to WP:FRINGE. This is clearly a fringe theory, which has been roundly rejected by the mainstream mathematical community, despite the best efforts of its closest adherents to promote it by the continual publication of monographs on the subject. The article, however, approaches the subject as though it were a legitimate area of mathematical research. This is clearly assigning undue weight to fringe views, and so is a violation of the neutral point of view policy. Most of the mathematical material in the article needs to get the chop, and the remainder of the article should be devoted to explaining how and why this was rejected. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm entirely in agreement with making sure the article takes a neutral approach.Delaszk (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Dubious reference" at Graph isomorphism

See Wikipedia:ANI#.22dubious_reference_....22.3F. VG ☎ 23:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

User Míkka said "The fact that it is repeated in some obscure articles by persons with little credentials in graph theory bears little weight" about the following persons:

1)M. I. Trofimov 2)E. A. Smolenskii 3)V. N. Zemlyachenko 4)N. M. Korneenko 5)R. I. Tyshkevich 6)R. T. Faizullin

7)A. V. Prolubnikov 8)Jitse Niesen 9)David Eppstein 10)Corneil 11)Gotlieb

!!!--Tim32 (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Lambda calculus and friends

Over at WP:CS, I'm wondering what to do about various forms of the lambda calculus...please do drop by and chime in! --mgreenbe (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

math question

How much is 85 billion divided by 200 million?

Is it 425000 or 42500? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.200.144 (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, math questions such as this should go to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. But you should be able to answer this one with any calculator. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

At least once you've decided how big a billion is. Algebraist 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two conventions. An American billion is one thousand million, i.e. 10⁹. An old British billion was one million million, i.e. 10¹². Nowadays we use 10⁹ as one billion in the UK. Although I believe some European counties, such as Spain, still use 10¹² for one billion.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  15:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And, the answer is 425 - as in $425 for every adult American, rather than the $425,000 that is being circulated around the Internet for the AIG bailout.  Frank  |  talk  17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The response "...the answer is..." is missing something. Are you using the short scale or the long scale? That seems to have been the point of the question.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  18:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The short scale; the question clearly relates to the ridiculous email circulating that states the US Government should, instead of bailing out AIG, give every adult American the equivalent amount of money ($425,000). The math doesn't work, since in the United States, a billion is always 10⁹, so the correct amount would be a relatively paltry $425.  Frank  |  talk  18:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I would love to see the inflation that would result from giving every American nearly half a million dollars! --Tango (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As one of the many non-American English speaking editors here on Wikipedia the question, for me, did not clearly relate to the said email.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  19:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I realized any number of readers might have been in that situation, which is why I put in the specific reference to AIG in my response. You can find details over here at snopes. 19:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Help

Would appreciate neutral eyes on Esquisse d' un Programme, which has been deleted under WP:CSD#A1 by two different administrators (including myself). I am inclined to delete it again but I am interested in others' opinions first.  Frank  |  talk  18:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Some people seem to think that Alexander Grothendieck is a genius, but I have seen nothing which justifies that belief. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL? Probably comments like that are best ignored, but I have to ask: are you so arrogant to think that anybody cares about your opinion of Grothendieck? My memory of your previous contributions do not include a habit of going around giving unsolicited opinions of mathematical greats. --C S (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the article in question is only important, if one thinks that Grothendieck himself is important. As if it were notes that Albert Einstein had written on his intentions to develop relativity. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC) P.S. There is at least as much reason to care about my opinion of Grothendieck as there is to care about your opinion of me.

An important distinction here is that I don't think anybody gives a rat's ass what I say to you here in response to your ridiculous comment. On the other hand, I really want to know why you would think anybody cares at all about your opinion of Grothendieck, or why you would think your opinion is in the slightest informed. --C S (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, peaceful!

I think it is fair to say that Grothendieck is in the very first row of mathematicians. He revolutionized algebraic geometry and many related fields, both by introducing groundbreaking notions and ideas and emphasizing a top-to-down and structural viewpoint. I personally think it is due to him that algebra is much more conceptual in flavor than other areas of mathematics, which often seem to rely on methods instead of structures. As for the article on Esquisse d'un programme (notice that in French there is no space after the '), I think it would be good to merge this into his own article. This "belief" is, for example, detailed in the introduction to the Grothendieck Festschrift. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this discussion is now moot, following the rapid and conclusive consensus in the AfD discussion that the topic of the article is definitely notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Balloon calculus"

user:Espressobongo has been installing external links to something called "balloon calculus", which claims to be a novel approach to some aspects of calculus (see Special:Contributions/Espressobongo). When you go to the web site, it turns out that (as far as I can tell) you can't find out what it's all about unless you download their software. Opinions? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to report this to WP:ANI. IIRC, there is a bot that automatically removes spammy links (but it must be configured). VG ☎ 19:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I reported it to WP:RSPAM. VG ☎ 19:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And reverted all of the links (hopefully). It's clearly spam based on the guidelines. VG ☎ 19:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see a link on the contributions page. There's one to calculus but that's about it. Is that because the article has been deleted?  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

He/she inserted external links, not Wikipedia links. (There are no deleted contributions (admin only).) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think reporting this to WP:ANI and WP:SPAM was ill-advised. Persons knowledgeable in the subject matter had already dealt with it without newbie-biting. If people who've never heard of mathematics but who work daily on WP:SPAM start dealing with it, I expect they will tell me that since I am knowledgeable in the subject matter I am scum who should meekly obey them while they kick me. That's what they do. If a link constitutes spam, that's not necessarily because the page's owner intended it that way, and it is possible that the page's owner can alter it in such a way that the link has value, and we are better qualified to judge that sort of thing than are admins who've never heard of mathematics and who believe we should obey them because of it. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I think you're blowing it way out of proportion. Nobody told him he was scum. I gave him a polite, albeit automated, level 1 warning (see User_talk:Espressobongo). Adding the same website link indiscriminately to many pages (Quotient_rule, Chain_rule, Product_rule, Antiderivative, Integration_by_parts, etc.) meets the Wikipedia definition of spam. He gave no indication how his site is germane to the articles he linked to, and the site itself is raised a big "huh" from me and another editor above. When I reported him to WP:RSPAM I had no idea if he was going to stop or not, and my report was intended to prevent further disruption and clean-up work. Hindsight is 20/20 I hear. VG ☎ 20:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean they told the alleged spammer he was scum; I meant those who are in the habit of enforcing rules against spam are sometimes gratuitously disrespectful, not to alleged spammers, but to subject-matter experts whose interest is in the topics of the articles on which alleged or suspected spam is posted. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism: Julia Sets

Resolved

I've just found this upon reading the article on Julia Sets:

"It is commonly believed that Julia sets are named in honor of Gaston Julia, the celebrated French mathematician. Unfortunately, this is a vicious lie perpetrated by sexist mathematical historians seeking to remove every last trace of female influence from the annals of the numerical arts. The true namesake of these sets is Julia Gaston, the renowned Amazon.com customer whose lofty literary tastes (Vonnegut, Bradbury) are counterbalanced by her low-brow DVD selections (Desperate Housewives) and silly video game preferences (Lego Indiana Jones, Karaoke Revolution). Also, she appears to like cooking. See for yourself.

Fun facts about Julia Gaston:

• She was born on Christmas.
• She likes fun, stuff, and fun stuff.
• She hails from Wichita, Kansas, that beacon of light on the banks of the mighty Arkansas.
• One day, while waiting for UPS to deliver the Mama's Family DVDs she purchased from Amazon.com, she had a breathtaking mathematical insight that led to the discovery of Julia sets, whose eponymous title has since been misattributed to Gaston Julia.

"

I'm not to experienced, and can't find who added this rubbish. But can an admin get on the case and block the fool?

I've deleted most of this so that it simply reads "It is commonly believed that Julia sets are named in honor of Gaston Julia, the celebrated French mathematician."

This sentence may need to be rewritten: Is it names after him, or is it believed to be named after him?  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  15:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Checking the page history can reveal who did what. You may also find it easier to use the undo link there, which ensures all traces of the vandalism are gone. WP:POPUPS is another useful tool. --Salix (talk): 16:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a rule about rounding numbers from sources?

Sorry for asking a question that isn't directly relevant to any maths articles, but I think this is one of the few places where I don't have to explain what the problem is. Many population numbers in Wikipedia look like "19,297,729 (2007 est.)". I consider this very embarassing, wondering (only rhetorically, of course) why we never see decimal points in this context. Do we have guidelines for or against reasonable rounding when our sources pretend some preposterous precision? --Hans Adler (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Usually these population figures come from surveys or consensuses. For example, in the UK we have a national consensus every ten years that it manditory: if you're on the governemnt's radar and you don't complete it then they'll take you to court. As such we get figures with similar levels of accuracy. Of course there are people that aren't on the governement's radar, and this might cause a problem. An easier way might be to say that the official population was around 19.3m in 2007.  Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I read "est." as "estimated" and "2007" as "at some undisclosed time on some undisclosed day in the year 2007". These numbers are probably produced by bureaucrats who are afraid of decisions (such as how, exactly, to round). They run some software that gives them a number like 19,297,728.72954 ± 119.30673, and they invariably round up or down to the next integer rather than to a round number that reflects the actual precision. In the case of a census it makes a bit more sense, but even then I think we should round. I don't think we should ever have more than 3 non-zero digits in a population number. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers):

Avoid overly precise values where they are unlikely to be stable or accurate, or where the precision is unnecessary in the context (The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second is probably appropriate, but The distance from the Earth to the Sun is 149,014,769 kilometres and The population of Cape Town is 2,968,790 would usually not be, because both values are unstable at that level of precision, and readers are unlikely to care in the context.

Of course, this advice may be controversial, and there may be other rules contradicting / clarifying this, so it would be dangerous to storm ahead and change this in thousands of articles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A security guard at a museum told a visitor that a dinosaur skeleton displayed there was 70,000,006 years old. When asked how he could be sure of so precise a value, he explained that it was seventy-million years old when he started working there, six years earlier. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that's exactly what I was looking for. I suppose one of the reasons it's not being followed is because it doesn't give clear instructions what to do (i.e. how to round, exactly), and only says what not to do. I'll try to look through the MOSNUM talk page archives. These issues must have been discussed before, and that looks like a better place for doing it. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Stokes' theorem

I moved this article from the strange name "Stokes's theorem" just now. If anyone objects to this, let's talk at Talk:Stokes' theorem. Apparently Skewes' number has also been moved to "Skewes's number" and back recently. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

conversions of tables to orbit diagrams

A discussion at Talk:Gliese 581 c revolves around the OR-ness of converting data tables to diagrams of orbits. This might be of interest to you. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)