Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics
| Main page | Discussion | Content | Assessment | Participants | Resources |
| 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  |
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 self-study 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 down-to-earth 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 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 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. |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
It would be much appreciated if people could read the Emmy Noether article and check for statements that are unclear, under-cited, or otherwise unbecoming the encyclopedia project. XOR'easter (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- For those more knowledgeable with the subject matter than I am, the two sections that may need some more citations the most are the ones on ascending and descending chain conditions and algebraic invariant theory. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- My impression from working on the article previously was that everything discussed in it is addressed in the references already present (and for a math topic, having a clickly blue linky number for each sentence doesn't necessarily go further to satisfying WP:V than having one per subsection). But this would be a good opportunity to point readers at references that are particularly good. Anybody have favorite books about either of those? XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- The section on algebraic invariant theory doesn't make enough contact with Noether's work in the area, which was eclipsed by that of Hilbert. Both the Rowe and Dick source describe her dissertation done under Gordan, which was devoted to symbolic computation of invariants, and in fact a later source of some embarrassment. The section would benefit by emphasizing this, and summarizing the sources better (and referring to them). Tito Omburo (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Care to tackle that? I could try, but I'm not sure when I'll have an uninterrupted block of time long enough. XOR'easter (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Sgubaldo, @Tito Omburo, @XOR'easter. The discussion now is into FARC: one delist and one keep. I have found some of the unsourced sections after looking up at its content. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Care to tackle that? I could try, but I'm not sure when I'll have an uninterrupted block of time long enough. XOR'easter (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- The section on algebraic invariant theory doesn't make enough contact with Noether's work in the area, which was eclipsed by that of Hilbert. Both the Rowe and Dick source describe her dissertation done under Gordan, which was devoted to symbolic computation of invariants, and in fact a later source of some embarrassment. The section would benefit by emphasizing this, and summarizing the sources better (and referring to them). Tito Omburo (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- My impression from working on the article previously was that everything discussed in it is addressed in the references already present (and for a math topic, having a clickly blue linky number for each sentence doesn't necessarily go further to satisfying WP:V than having one per subsection). But this would be a good opportunity to point readers at references that are particularly good. Anybody have favorite books about either of those? XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- As an update to this, there's now 13 citation needed tags left to take care of. 5 are specifically in the ascending and descending chain conditions section. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- The first epoch of algebraic invariant theory says "an example, if a rigid yardstick is rotated, the coordinates (x1, y1, z1) and (x2, y2, z2) of its endpoints change ...". How is this related to the article but does not explicitly says about that example? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think that line was just trying to explain what "invariant" means. I trimmed the notation, since we don't use it later. 10 {{citation needed}} tags remain. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- The first epoch of algebraic invariant theory says "an example, if a rigid yardstick is rotated, the coordinates (x1, y1, z1) and (x2, y2, z2) of its endpoints change ...". How is this related to the article but does not explicitly says about that example? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The featured article Algebra has taken onto the dispute by two users, with the reason that the article continues to expand even further or personalization things (or whatever it is). More users for giving points of view in Talk:Algebra#Recent changes to subsection "Polynomials". Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Area of a circle
[edit]Please see recent edit history at Area of a circle where some new editor insists that Archimedes proof needs to be labeled as "a logic proof" and that a calculation of the areas of some isosceles triangles needs to be replaced by subdividing the triangles into right triangles and summing their areas instead, in not-well-written English. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that these edits are not good. However I hope that someone can improve the readability of this section.
- I think the 'not greater' argument can be described in a clear way almost entirely without symbols. It has two parts: (1) any inscribed regular polygon has smaller area than the right triangle and (2) there exist inscribed regular polygons with area arbitrarily close to the circle area. So if the circle area is greater than the triangle area, by (2) there is an inscribed regular polygon with area larger than the triangle area, but this contradicts (1).
- The argument for (1) is that the polygon perimeter is less than the circle circumference (as follows from the fact that lines minimize distance between two points) and the polygon's inner radius is less than the circle radius. Since polygon area is one half the perimeter times the inner radius and triangle area is one half the circumference times the circle radius, (1) follows immediately. Fact (2) is extremely intuitive, and could even be acceptable here as self-evident. Archimedes' construction of iterated bisection is a good illustration but probably not a proper proof. Is it clear without doing some extra calculation that the 'gap area' eventually becomes arbitrarily small?
- I think it's a really marvelous proof (or almost-proof) but I found its wiki-description rather hard to read. For me a description of the above kind is much easier.
- (And if nothing else, symbol is presently referred to multiple times but not defined!) Gumshoe2 (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
MathJax for non-signed-in users in the future
[edit]Pinging @Salix alba:
If I understand correctly, every non-signed-in user will be forced to see math as rendered by MathML, beginning in December 2024. But since MathML has many disadvantages in comparison with MathJax, it would be illogical to shove MathML down their throat.
The users who are not signed in can change appearance of their Wikipedia. There's a panel on the right that allows them to change the size of the text, width of the text and also color. However, they should be able to change their math renderer as well. Given that they will be able to change the text, width and color, why not change the math renderer as well? I think everyone would benefit from that.
As an aside, why does the MathJax option read "[...] (for browsers with limited MathML support)"? It assumes that the only reason why one wants MathJax is that their browser has limited MathML support, which is false. Many users label MathML as inferior to MathJax, providing an overflowing supply of reasons, regardless of the level of support of MathML in the browser they use. A1E6 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Does there exist an exact definition of "Mathematical object"? Please join the discussion
[edit]Link to to discussion: Talk:Mathematical object#Consensus 1: Existence of an exact definition - Farkle Griffen (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)