This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TakuyaMurata (talk | contribs) at 07:26, 20 August 2017 (→Draft:Faithfully flat descent: better link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:26, 20 August 2017 by TakuyaMurata (talk | contribs) (→Draft:Faithfully flat descent: better link)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) This is a discussion page for WikiProject Mathematics |
|
|
| Please add new topics at the bottom of the page and sign your posts. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
See also: Using Misplaced Pages for mathematics self-study Why are Misplaced Pages 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 down-to-earth exposition, then you are welcome to add that to the article. Why don't Misplaced Pages'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 well-written article should establish its context well enough that it does not need a separate list of prerequisites. Furthermore, directly addressing the reader breaks Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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. |
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Mathematics and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73Auto-archiving period: 15 days  |
Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used Template:Misplaced Pages ad exists
call for abstracts
Posting this here since it would be great if someone could come along and talk about Misplaced Pages's mathematical culture.
CALL FOR ABSTRACTS (deadline: 30th June 2017)
ENABLING MATHEMATICAL CULTURES, University of Oxford, 5th-7th December 2017
This workshop celebrates the completion of the EPSRC-funded project “Social Machines of Mathematics”, led by Professor Ursula Martin at the University of Oxford. We will present research arising from the project, and bring together interested researchers who want to build upon and complement our work. We invite interested researchers from a broad range of fields, including: Computer Science, Philosophy, Sociology, History of Mathematics and Science, Argumentation theory, and Mathematics Education. Through such a diverse mix of disciplines we aim to foster new insights, perspectives and conversations around the theme of Enabling Mathematical Cultures.
Our intention is to build upon previous events in the “Mathematical Cultures” series. These conferences explored diverse topics concerning the socio-cultural, historical and philosophical aspects of mathematics. Our workshop will, likewise, explore the social nature of mathematical knowledge production, through analysis of historical and contemporary examples of mathematical practice. Our specific focus will be on how social, technological and conceptual tools are developed and transmitted, so as to enable participation in mathematics, as well as the sharing and construction of group knowledge in mathematics. In particular, we are interested in the way online mathematics, such as exhibited by the Polymath Projects, MathOverflow and the ArXiv, enable and affect the mathematical interactions and cultures.
We hereby invite the submission of abstracts of up to 500 words for papers to be presented in approximately 30 minutes (plus 10 minutes Q+A). The Enabling Mathematical Cultures workshop will have space on Days 2 and 3 of the meeting for a number of accepted talks addressing the themes of social machines of mathematics, mathematical collaboration, mathematical practices, ethnographic or sociological studies of mathematics, computer-assisted proving, and argumentation theory as applied in the mathematical realm. Please send your abstracts to Fenner.Tanswell@Gmail.com by the deadline of the 30th June 2017.
The event takes place in the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford on 5th, 6th and 7th December 2017, with a dinner on 5th December and an informal supper on 6th December.
The focus of Day 1 will be on success, failure and impact of foundational research with an emphasis on history and long term development. Days 2 and 3 will focus on studies of contemporary and prospective mathematical cultures from sociological, philosophical, educational and computational perspectives.
Confirmed speakers include: Andrew Aberdein, Michael Barany, Alan Bundy, Joe Corneli, Matthew Inglis, Lorenzo Lane, Ursula Martin, Dave Murray-Rust, Alison Pease and Fenner Tanswell.
Organising Committee: Ursula Martin, Joe Corneli, Lorenzo Lane, Fenner Tanswell, Sarah Baldwin, Brendan Larvor, Benedikt Loewe, Alison Pease
Further information will be added to the website at https://enablingmaths.wordpress.com
Previous "Mathematical Cultures" events can be found here: https://sites.google.com/site/mathematicalcultures/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arided (talk • contribs)
A new editor that I think could use some assistance
Please see my discussion at User talk:Alireza Badali#User:Alireza Badali/A new version of Goldbach's conjecture concerning User:Alireza Badali/A new version of Goldbach's conjecture. It looks to me as though User:Alireza Badali could be a great help to this project given some guidance. I'm taking the liberty of pinging a random few of you who have edited recently. @Hasteur, In ictu oculi, and David Eppstein:. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: Um... I'm not an abstract math editor. In my subjective view I think you hit the nail on the head that this reads like WP:OR and might be the basis of a published work. Thinking about a previous case where user's work here was pushed to mainspace only to find out that the user was using wikipedia as a staging ground for creating a published article in a journal (Affective piety) I think we might want to task the user if they're intending on submitting this to a journal, and if so CSD:G7 (Author self delete) so as to retain their copyright. Hasteur (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: I didn't know that that would allow them to use it freely, as the notes at the bottom of the edit field say By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. I don't want to misinform them. They are saying they wish to close their account, which is a shame. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: The problem is lots of journals have a "Anything you submit to us must not be public domain accessable" rule (because they want "exclusive content" Hasteur (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: Thanks. But how does me deleting the page save his copyright? Doug Weller talk 12:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- If the page is deleted, when the journal goes out to search, they may not be able to find it. Hasteur (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have never actually encountered a journal that didn't like prior public versions. But maybe standards are different in different areas. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: In mathematics one can submit to a journal something that's been on the arXiv, but in biology they have "embargoes". Michael Hardy (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Most of my pubs are in CS journals rather than math ones, but there also embargoes are unknown. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: In mathematics one can submit to a journal something that's been on the arXiv, but in biology they have "embargoes". Michael Hardy (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have never actually encountered a journal that didn't like prior public versions. But maybe standards are different in different areas. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- If the page is deleted, when the journal goes out to search, they may not be able to find it. Hasteur (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: Thanks. But how does me deleting the page save his copyright? Doug Weller talk 12:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: The problem is lots of journals have a "Anything you submit to us must not be public domain accessable" rule (because they want "exclusive content" Hasteur (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: I didn't know that that would allow them to use it freely, as the notes at the bottom of the edit field say By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. I don't want to misinform them. They are saying they wish to close their account, which is a shame. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
MR, JfM, Zbl error checking
Please comment at Help talk:Citation Style 1#JFM error checking and other sections.
If someone has the exact specification for those identifiers, that would be much appreciated too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Adjoint representation of a Lie algebra
There's a clear consensus to merge Adjoint representation into Adjoint representation of a Lie algebra. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Lie algebra willing to do it? I'm too ignorant. Klbrain (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Cut-the-Knot nominated for deletion
Comment here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cut-the-Knot. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Archimedes-lab.org nominated for deletion
Comment here, if you so desire: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Archimedes-lab.org. XOR'easter (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Prime Number Distribution Series
Can someone else please look at this new article? I am wondering whether it is original research in the Misplaced Pages sense. It has two references, but they both appear to be the author's own, so that I don't see any peer-reviewed work. The author also seems to be making "interesting" claims to have discovered something about prime numbers that hasn't been learned by anyone else in 2300 years of increasingly complex rigorous mathematical study. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Clearly, OR. The author asks "Please do not disrupt the ongoing work!" on the talk page there. Well, he could continue the work on his userspace. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Clearly a deletion candidate IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- To be complete, the comment not to disrupt the ongoing work had been included when the author was still building the article in mainspace, and I then moved it into draft space to give him room to finish it, but he did more work and then moved it back into mainspace. AFD is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- This author is unknown to both MathSciNet and Zbl. This page is clearly OR and should be deleted. Sapphorain (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
User Drrob2017
I would like to bring attention to a new user Drrob2017 User talk:Drrob2017 with a single purpose account who has been updating many mathematical pages with references to a certain piece of work, possibly his. Limit-theorem (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
References
- Soltani, R.; Bash, B.; Goeckel, D.; Guha, S.; Towsley, D. (September 2014). "Covert single-hop communication in a wireless network with distributed artificial noise generation". 2014 52nd Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton): 1078–1085. doi:10.1109/ALLERTON.2014.7028575.
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which this project has been involved. The thread is "Willfull and persistent disruption of Draft space by TakuyaMurata". Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand the complaint against Takuya Murata. Can someone explain why the existence of these drafts is a problem? If it is a problem, could it be solved by moving them to the user namespace? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Michael Hardy: Read the above section "Stale Abstratic mathematic Draft pages, again" and the linked discussion from last year where Takuya has explicitly rejected moving it to their userspace. Hasteur (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Hasteur: Just to put my side of the story on the record: I objected to the moves since that would defeat the purpose of the draftspace. How is it the case it would be ok if I were to work on them in my userspace but not in the draftspace? The logic is simply broken here. I can be persuaded only if some legitimate reason is given (not just harassment.) -- Taku (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Michael Hardy: Read the above section "Stale Abstratic mathematic Draft pages, again" and the linked discussion from last year where Takuya has explicitly rejected moving it to their userspace. Hasteur (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Biquaternion
Could do with a third opinion at Talk:Biquaternion, whether a source/sources Theor-phys wants to add are appropriate or not.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 12:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Draft:Faithfully flat descent
Hi all,
There is a disagreement as to whether the development of the math-related articles in the main namespace benefits from redirecting this draft (at Draft talk:Faithfully flat descent) to the mainspace. I find the logic absurd but, since math is absurdity anyway, we can use some additional inputs to break the tie. Thanks! -- Taku (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)