Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

"Infoboxes" on number articles

List of numbers – Irrational numbers ζ(3) – √2 – √3 – √5 – φ – α – e – π – δ

List of numbers – Irrational numbers γ - ζ(3) – √2 – √3 – √5 – φ – α – e – π – δ
Number System	Evaluation of $\pi$
Binary	11.00100100001111110110…
Decimal
Hexadecimal
Rational approximations	22⁄7, 223⁄71, 355⁄113, ... (listed in order of increasing accuracy)
Continued fraction	[3; 7, 15, 1, 292, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 14, 2, 1, 1, … ] (This continued fraction is not periodic. Shown in linear notation)
Trigonometry	$\pi$ radians = 180 degrees

Earlier today I tried to remove the "infobox" (displayed right), from e (mathematical constant), since it doesn't seem to me to add much of use to the article (as well as the fact that the links listed seem a bit arbitrary), I was reverted with the comment "the same template is used in the aticle about pi and all of the other irrational numbers of interest". And in fact the article for each of the constants listed in that infobox contains the infobox, and some have sprouted more expansive infoboxes (e.g. see the infobox for Pi displayed right). What do others think about these? Paul August ☎ 18:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the pi infobox is pretty frivolous for a lot of reasons. First, putting links to list of numbers and irrational number is not informative. Second, linking to other "irrational" numbers is unnecessary. Third, pi's hexadecimal and binary expansions add absolutely no insights into the nature of this number. Neither does the continued fraction expansion (that would make sense for numbers where the continued fraction expansion has a pattern or defines the number). Ditto about the rational approximations.

All in all, while some people may think infoboxes are pretty and summarize some properties, this particular one adds no value I can see. I'd say we should cut it out. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The irrational numbers infobox is silly, and the pi infobox is obnoxious. Both should be removed. Ozob (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that these particular infoboxes, even more than infoboxes in general, are just infotainment. I don't mind them very strongly, but I am also inclined towards removing them. Hans Adler 01:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What is "rational approximations" is supposed to mean? Isn't 3.14 a rational approximation? I was thinking it would be the best approximations for a given bound on the denominator, but then the entire list would be 3/1, 13/4, 16/5, 19/6, 22/7, 179/57, 201/64, 223/71, 245/78, 267/85, 289/92, 311/99, 333/106, 355/113, ... which is a lot more than what's listed. It's kind of a general problem with infoboxes that no one seems to check that they're accurate.--RDBury (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What's typically listed as rational approximations are the convergents (aka approximants) of the continued fraction representation, but maybe we should also include all those you mentioned, which can also be obtained from the CF as described at Continued_fraction#Best_rational_approximations. Dicklyon (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

While it is clear that the infobox adds no insight about the nature of π and is of no value to mathematicians (and also that its location in the article is distracting and "obnoxious"), perhaps we should check if the binary and hexadecimal forms are of any use to, say, programmers (why were they put there in the first place?). About infoboxes in general, there is nothing wrong with infotainment per se; articles don't have to cater only to readers who actually read the whole thing (who are a tiny minority, of course). :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about that but I'm pretty sure that modern assemblers are smart enough to convert decimal into binary for programming purposes.--RDBury (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for sharing your views. Based upon the above discussion, I intend to remove the infoboxes, and will leave a note on the involved articles' talk pages, as well as on the talk page of the reverting editor (Robo37), pointing to this discussion and asking anyone who disagree to please join this discussion.

Not that that it matters particularly, but I've discovered that the infoboxes were added, for the most part it seems, by two apparent sockpuppets (Anton Mravcek (talk · contribs) and PrimeFan (talk · contribs)) of Dmetric (talk · contribs), all of whom (as well as many more see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dmetric) have been blocked.

Paul August ☎ 12:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a lot of casual readers might like that sort of infotainment. Not everyone wants the hard facts and theorems. Some people just want to see other wacky numbers like Pi (and would be led to phi, sqrt(2), e, etc.). --Robin (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There are better ways to infotain yourself than to watch the parade of all imaginable pi representations which have nothing to do with pi's purpose. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I was defending the "ζ(3) – √2 – √3 – √5 – φ – α – e – π – δ" part, which might be fun for casual readers. The hexadecimal representation of pi is probably completely useless to everyone. --Robin (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That is really a completely absurd list of "irrational numbers". There's no link between them and how are α and δ even on such a list. I find ζ(2) much more interesting than ζ(3), for example. I find the argument against that infobox is more that it's an absurd list. A more suitable list would be like a list of numbers that have been studied for forever (π, e, φ, √2, -1, i). RobHar (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Objection to removal of infoboxes

I disagree strongly with the removal of the infoboxes, and especially with the way it was done. First, one editor removed the infobox from e (mathematical constant) with no talk page discussion and no pretense of consensus, essentially because he doesn't like it. Unsurprisingly, this was quickly reverted. Instead of discussing the removal and revert on the article's talk page (see WP:BRD) with the editors who have been maintaining the article and who evidently approve of the infobox, the editor comes here. The editor does not even post notice of this "discussion" on the talk page of that article or on the talk pages of his other target articles. After 20 hours, during about 8 of which most of us were asleep, still with no notice to the editors of any of the articles, the discussion is closed. The editor who initiated the discussion here then removes infoboxes from 10 articles, and then posts notices on the articles' talk pages that invites anyone who objects to join this discussion that has already reached its conclusion.

I object.

Two types of infoboxes were removed:

• The short, one-line type guides readers to articles on other notable irrational numbers. While not enlightening to the mathematicians here, this navigation box is helpful to high school and college students and other general readers, who come to Wikipedia to learn about things that they do not already know. These are the people for whom we are building this free encyclopedia.
• The longer type is hand-crafted for the particular article. It consolidates useful information about the particular irrational number in one place at the beginning article for easy reference. That is what infoboxes are supposed to do.

I am restoring the infoboxes. Please do not remove any of them without first reaching consensus to do so on the talk page of the particular article. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 18:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you intend to address any of the arguments above that the so-called "useful information" is in fact largely useless? Algebraist 18:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the restoration of the infoboxes, primarily because they were removed with insufficient consensus or even notice on the relevant articles. But in answer to some of the arguments above, I'd say that the continued fraction expansion of pi is of fundamental importance, as with other irrationals, in understanding the nature of its rational approximations. And the binary and hexadecimal fractions are the same kind of trivia as the decimal expansion, useless info that nobody seems to have trouble with, but arguably more useful for someone who wants to make an accurate approximate representation in a computer – not a great reason, but what the heck, it's also infotainment, as I made fun of at my favorite: Square root of 4. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The continued fraction expansion of pi has no more value than its rational approximation or than the hexadecimal representation. It is just a sequence of numbers with no pattern and no insights. Granted, this expansion is not useless, but it does not belong to the "defining" or "illuminating" features which an infobox is supposed to highlight. I would support the inclusion of the continued fraction only at the golden ratio article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very surprised to hear you say that, given how often the continued fraction of pi is explicitly displayed and discussed in relation to some very special approximations to pi, for example in these many books. Dicklyon (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec fix)May I suggest splitting this up into two discussions: One concerning the infobox about π to be held at Talk:Pi#Removal_of_infobox, and the other about the infobox which I will call "Irrational numbers infobox", to be held on this page. My suggestion for holding the latter on this page is that the infobox appears on several pages and I believe the issue at hand is not its inclusion but rather its content (and if the infobox was a template (as they usually are), the discussion would take place on the template's talk page). In both cases, I suggest reinserting the infoboxes into the articles to be in line with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I will start a new subsection below regarding the "irrational numbers infobox". RobHar (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Also: it appears the latter infobox sometimes also contains expansion in various bases and continued fraction expansions, I'd suggest discussing this in another subsection I will start below. RobHar (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to discuss this centrally; but you need to post a notification on the talk pages of each of the affected articles, or you'll run into the same problem again. Dicklyon (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted to see if anybody agreed before doing that. I'll do it now. RobHar (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For a discussion about the infoboxes in question please see the two following subsection and, for the infobox on pi, see Talk:Pi#Removal_of_infobox. The discussion in this section is about procedure (and in some sense the "past"). Finell has stated (in my opinion correctly) that consensus for the removal should be obtained before re-removing. The discussion above on this page was not announced on the relevant article talk pages and those articles' editors could not be aware of it. The infoboxes should be reinserted pending us reaching a possibly new consensus in which the respective articles' editors have been given the time to weight in. This is the way of wiki (WP:BRD). If you have an objection to this, this section is where you can voice that. Other discussion should go on in the relevant other section. Ok, let's do this. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• The infoboxes are relevant and should remain. Drakcap (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Irrational numbers infobox

It has been suggested above to remove the following infobox from all articles it is on:

List of numbers – Irrational numbers ζ(3) – √2 – √3 – √5 – φ – α – e – π – δ

To do this in a centralized location, I propose discussing this infobox here.

My personal feelings are that the general idea of the infobox may be appropriate, but the current list of numbers is absurd. α and δ are nowhere near as notable as the other numbers, for example. Overall, the list seems arbitrary. I think a list that could work would be (π, e, φ, √2, -1, i) or (π, e, φ, √2), being lists of classically important numbers. RobHar (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears some of the articles also include the Euler–Mascheroni constant. I feel that's not on the level of notability of (π, e, φ, √2, -1, i) either. RobHar (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)

Some versions of this navigation box also include the Euler–Mascheroni constant. Rational persons could disagree over a notability threshold, and Wikipedians could argue about it for days, maybe weeks. The purpose of the navigation box is to invite interested readers to explore other irrational numbers. Being inclusive, within reason, furthers this purpose. Please just leave it as is. It has not been a problem for the long time during which these boxes have been in the articles without complaint. Finell (Talk) 19:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's just not a practical way to approach this (though you seem to be stating it is). It means the only current criterion for being on the list is "Do I like this number?". This necessarily leads to the problem that you complained of above regarding WP:IDL. I think ζ(2) is much more interesting than ζ(3), γ, α, and δ. Can I add it? RobHar (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia must not have an irrational numbers infobox. It will violate policy. Creating such an infobox requires selecting a set of irrational numbers to include: Some irrational numbers would be deemed important enough to include, and others would not. Unless we can attribute that selection to someone, the choice constitutes WP:OR. If you can find someone who says, "The following irrational numbers are the most important: ..." then we can create an infobox for "So-and-so's list of important irrational numbers". But we cannot create that list ourselves. Ozob (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I recommend we base the selection on a good book, such as Mathematial Constants, by Finch, chapter 1 "Well-Known Constants", and draw the line at groups where the constants don't each have their own name and symbol. The effect of this would be primarily to remove square roots of 3 and 5 from the list, which would be OK by me. Dicklyon (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that this would also have the effect of adding Catalan's constant, Madelung constant, Chaitin's constant, and removing the Feigenbaum constants. Right? RobHar (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

He does give the two distinct symbols for the two Feigenbaum constants, so let's keep those. And add ln2, also. And it's not clear to me that Chaitin's constant is a constant, or what its value is, so not sure on that one. Dicklyon (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It just doesn't seem like an actual list of "well-known" constants. To be honest, I don't really subscribe to the idea of using one source as a definitive list of interesting numbers (or anything else for that matter). Unless the infobox is called Steven Finch's list of well-known mathematical constants. Such an infobox should only exist if that list is notable, which in this case it is not. If Gauss, or Hilbert, or someone of that stature compiled a list at some point, that would be good. Otherwise, in my opinion, the best we could do (that would result in including this infobox) would be determine some sort of consensus on what the general literature considers well-known mathematical constants, or what constants clearly appear everywhere. RobHar (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Robo37 has just taken on a more WP:POINTy approach, it appears, which is to add every irrational he can find to the infobox. It seems to me that we ought to have the discussion first. Dicklyon (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Robo37's new version wraps, with just one character on a second line (ugly), and is so wide that it degrades the layout of the lead. And he in essence reverted Epstein's reverts of my reverts of the original removal of the infoboxes? Why all this unilateral action with no respect for existing consensus and no attempt to build a new consensus? I have no prior experience with Project Math. Is this standard operating procedure here? I hope not. Finell (Talk) 20:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, minutiae like this tends to bring out the most petty and juvenile among us. I agree with you entirely that adding a huge list of irrationals is just disruptive. Ozob (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have gone away for today. Anyone mind if I use the rollback button on all those? Dicklyon (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would indeed be a good idea to rollback those edits to help this discussion move forward. RobHar (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of a list of numbers is not so much an infobox in a specific number article but rather it is more a navigation template. The purpose of a navigation template is to guide readers to other articles on the same, or a related, subject, in this case to other irrational number articles. The idea that you should only include well known numbers - ie, ones that the reader has already heard of - is, quite frankly, silly. The readers already knows where the pi article is, they don't need a template to find it. The criterion for inclusion should not be "notability", that is a criterion for deciding whether the number should have an article at all, the criterion should be "might a reader reading this article find x interesting also". This could, of course, end up with a very long list, but there is no need to point to every individual number article. On the other hand, the template can and should point to lists of numbers or articles about groups of numbers wherer the reader can find further links to individual articles. Remember, readers are generally trying to find something out from the encyclopedia, not just trying to confirm what they already know. SpinningSpark 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

When I talk about notability, it's more a matter of relative notability. I feel that the current list runs a wide gamut of notability, skipping some important constants. I find it good to direct the reader to other important numbers, but I also find it misleading to link to some of the current numbers on the list. I do like your idea of making an infobox that is a list of lists. The current infobox does link to List of numbers. This list already encompasses everything it seems. Are there other lists you're aware of? RobHar (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is Transcendental number#Known transcendental numbers and open problems but they are probably already all included in List of numbers. Transcendental number and algebraic number should probably be in the template somewhere and maybe transfinite number and complex number as well. SpinningSpark 00:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox with various expansions

The articles on Apéry's constant, the square roots of 2, 3, and 5, the Golden ratio, and the Euler–Mascheroni constant γ also include an infobox containing expansions of these numbers in different bases and continued fraction expansions. I propose discussing these infoboxes here (for the discussion of the even bigger infobox about π I suggest Talk:Pi#Removal_of_infobox). RobHar (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Why start this controversy? How is this improving Wikipedia for its readers? Are readers being misled or given erroneous information? These infoboxes have been in these articles for a long time without complaint or problem. Obviously, the editors who maintain the individual articles approve of the infoboxes. However, if you feel the need to discuss this anywhere, please do so on the individual talk pages for the individual articles, so you engage the editors who maintain the articles; the considerations may differ with each article. And in the future, please don't presume to decide here, as a project, to make mass changes to several articles without so much as a word to the editors who wrote or maintain those articles. A little respect for your co-editors would be in order. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 19:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

But someone has raised a complaint, so I am proposing to deal with this in a more sensible way than was done above. You may disagree with how Paul August dealt with the infoboxes, but that is not what this subsection of the discussion is for. To discuss that, you may start a new subsection or bring it to an entirely different forum altogether.

As it stands, I have posted a notice on the talk page of every article involved to discuss this here. I find this amply sufficient. I have suggested that the infoboxes be reinserted into their articles (based on prior consensus) until a new consensus is attained. I also find this completely appropriate. Several editors have now raised objections to these infoboxes, so the subject must be discussed. That's just the way it is. Again, if you are unhappy with how that was dealt with start a new section, I'd like for this section to be a new discussion about the infobox in question. Cheers. RobHar (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(interject after edit conflicts)

"You may disagree with how Paul August dealt with the infoboxes, but that is not what this subsection of the discussion is for. To discuss that, you may start a new subsection ..." That is what I did above, and others forked it into these two subsections. Meanwhile, another editor is now running around reverting my reverts of Paul's removal of the infoboxes, taking the position that consensus is needed to revert what Paul removed without consensus. Wikipedia doesn't need more controversies like this. I don't see how it helps the encyclopedia, and it certainly doesn't help the morale of the editors who worked on the articles in question to see that the "project" has overridden their consensus. In fact, I don't see anything on the consensus policy page that permits a project to override the consensus of an article's, or multiple articles', editors. Please restore the infoboxes that Paul removed and leave them intact until there is real consensus of the articles' editors to remove them, allowing several days for involved editors (not just those who can monitor their watchlists 24/7) to participate. Thank you. Finell (Talk) 20:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see what you are saying, sorry I confused myself. Indeed, you started a section above about this, and it turned into a discussion of whether or not the infoboxes should be included instead of a discussion about the manner in which they were originally (and subsequently) removed. I split off the "off-topic" discussion into these two sections hoping that the discussion you started in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Objection_to_removal_of_infoboxes could continue there, with discussion of the infoboxes themselves moved to these two sections. Sorry for my confusion. RobHar (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Myself, I believe that removing these infoboxes will make Wikipedia easier to comprehend. As it stands, readers are not being given incorrect facts; they are being given irrelevant facts. Undue weight is being placed on things that are of no interest to anybody. The binary and hexadecimal expansions of π are entirely useless. What information do they give that any other expansion doesn't? If one of these expressions were revealing in some way (in the same way that the continued fraction expansions of φ and the square roots of 2, 3, and 5 are revealing), then there would be a good reason to keep it. If you can demonstrate that these expansions are interesting to anyone anywhere, then we'll have a reason to keep them. Until then, I will cite WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ozob (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I kind of like infoboxes, as they tied interesting collections of things together in interesting ways. But I'd prefer to omit info that's not sourced – such as in the color infoboxes where people are always adding their favorite or computed RGB, CMY, HSL, HSV, LAB, etc. coordinates with no sourced basis at all. In the irrational number infoboxes, I'd agree that we ought to omit binary and hexadecimal expansions except where we can find a source to tie them to. There are many sources about computing hexadecimal digits of pi, but unless one of them actually lists the digits, let's don't. And if we don't find sourced continued fractions, let's leave those out, too (but for most of these I think we'll find them). Dicklyon (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

To me the problem is not so much sourcing any individual factoid in these boxes — I'm not worried about correctness — as justifying their inclusion. Why do we include ζ(3) but not ζ(2)? Because it's a trivial variation of π? But then why do we include both √5 and φ when they're trivial variations of each other. Why do we include base 2 and base 16 but not base 60 or base 1329? Etc. It's a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, and it doesn't add anything useful to the text of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I made a proposal in the subsection above about which numbers to include, based on a source. As for which bases, didn't I just say to include only stuff from sources? We might find a base-60 approximation to pi that would be worth adding, but I wouldn't worry about base 1329. Dicklyon (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact our sexagesimal article mentions two base-60 expansions of π. That doesn't mean that it would be helpful information to modern readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Tfd

This discussion seems to be getting ever longer and I am not sure what will come out of it. To isolate the issue of the list of irrational numbers, I made it into a template (which it almost is). I named it {{Irrational numbers}} and nominated it for deletion right away. This approach may provide a more organized forum. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the way the Math Project builds consensus: (1) First take the issue away from 10 articles' editors before they even know that there is an issue; (2) Take the issue away from here by making a template solely for the purpose of nominating it for deletion? What is the emergency that justifies trying to railroad this through? Couldn't you at least link to the nomination for deletion? Also, the articles in question do not use the same infobox (now template). Some infoboxes just lead to other articles on other irrational numbers. Others contain other information specific to the particular article (e.g., Pi, Golden ratio, Silver ratio). What is going on here? Who coordinates Project Math? Finell (Talk) 02:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Finell,

As far as I can tell, almost everyone here is acting in good faith, and nothing is being "railroaded". Part of the purpose of this talk page is to discuss issues that impact multiple mathematics articles—this makes more sense than having the same argument over and over again on the talk pages of ten different articles. As with any wikiproject, no one is in charge here, and the folks you have been interacting with are simply members of the project who have taken an interest in the issue.

In my opinion, it was entirely appropriate for a single editor to remove the infoboxes without first discussing it on the talk page. This was the BOLD part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Now that you have reverted these deletions, it is IMO inappropriate for another editor to be reverting your reverts before a consensus or compromise is reached.

If you want the infoboxes to remain on the articles, what you have to do is build a consensus here in favor of keeping them. Most likely, this will involve a compromise solution for what the contents of the infoboxes should be. Jim (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oleg, though I see the logic behind your TfD idea, I don't think that it's a very good way to proceed. First of all, folks who are following the link to this discussion from the talk pages on the articles will need to wade through this discussion and find the second link to the TfD discussion. Second, the template you created is not actually being used, and does not contain the material in the infobox for pi. Finally, I don't really see the purpose of moving the discussion elsewhere. This is a talk page, after all, so what's wrong with talking about the issue here? We could even have a straw poll here if you think it would help the discussion.

Of course, one advantage of your TfD idea is that it might attract the attention of some other editors who can weigh in on the issue. Instead of moving the discussion to the TfD page, would it be possible to put a link there to the ongoing discussion here? Jim (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: The discussion on TfD has ended, with the result being wrong forum. Jim (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, time to point out that WP:BURO frowns on purely procedural objections. I think User:Finell needs to set out a case that the boxes in question do more than a category would. For myself I'm not convinced. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is a bit late to point that out, since the deletion was very speedy, even for a speedy. The idea of creating an unused template just to have it deleted, which would not have resolved the question of whether to delete the existing navboxes, was not conducive to building consensus. And that followed Robo37 running around to all the articles to replace the long-existing navbox with an unwieldy one just to make a point. And I was annoyed at having to spend so much of my Sunday over what I viewed as a tempest in a teacup; I had other plans. However, the wikilawyerly response to this wikilawyery remark would point to WP:FORUMSHOPping, or WP:GAME. Do you really want to continue along these lines (I don't), or would you rather move on to something productive (I would)? Finell (Talk) 02:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'm sorry to start another subsection, but I'd like to offer a suggestion that tries to meet each side of this argument half way. Personally, I really like these types of navigational templates because, unless I already know a great deal about a given topic, they often lead me to places I would never have thought to, or known to, look. With this in mind, perhaps we can keep this template if we rename it to something like "Well-known mathematical constants", and then set the bar for inclusion fairly high. For instance, restrict it to constants that have had entire books devoted to them (and only one number from each 'class' of number, in the sense that sqrt(2) is enough representation for numbers of the form a^{1/n}) or that have an overwhelming level of support among contributors. In this case maybe something like {0, 1, pi, e, i, sqrt(2), ln(2), phi, zeta(2), gamma}? I know many curious students would appreciate the bread-crumb trail to follow, and we have a template that is probably as well-defined as is possible (which seems to be one of the big problems noted above). Of course, I'm assuming there aren't entire books written on obscure constants. Ben (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

My apologies to everyone for the sorry way I handled this. It would have been better if I had waited for more editors to comment before I removed the infoboxes, and it would have been better if I had publicized the discussion I started above more widely. My only defense is that I never imagined that anyone really cared much for these things. I am surprised and dismayed at the hornets nest that I have stirred up.

Going forward, I have no objection to the infoboxes being restored for the duration of this discussion. And until such time as a consensus is reached, I ask that they not be removed again. And I ask all editors to please discuss the issues involved calmly and objectively.

Paul August ☎ 13:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Questions:

1. When you boldly deleted the one-line navbox from e (mathematical constant) without consensus, then were reverted, why didn't you discuss the matter at Talk:e (mathematical constant)? That would be the typical WP:BRD cycle. Once the one editor quickly reverted you, you realized that at least one editor "really cared much for these things".
2. When you brought the issue to Project Math, why did you combine the issue of the simple navbox with a complaint about the more informative infoboxes at articles like Pi and Golden ratio? I realize that these infoboxes incorporate the navbox, but the desirability of having the other information in an infobox is a separate question from the desirability of an irrational number navbox.
3. What in the world led to this exercise?
4. Given that many editors object to eliminating either type of box, and that many project members think that both types should be eliminated, do you believe that the importance of eliminating the boxes justifies the instruction creep and controversy of having this project attempt to establish a Wikipedia-wide rule prohibiting either or both kinds of boxes in math articles? If you do, what harm to the encyclopedia, in your opinion, warrants the controversy and the instruction creep of a rule (a) prohibiting the irrational number navboxes and (b) prohibiting the other type of infoboxes? In other words, to you want Project Math to pursue this issue, or just let it drop? Finell (Talk) 01:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Answers for Finell:

1. I brought the matter to this page because, as a result of the reverting editor's edit summary: "the same template is used in the article about pi and all of the other irrational numbers of interest", I realized this was a wider issue involving several mathematics articles, and this page seemed to me the natural place to discuss issues like that. This is a well watched page by many mathematicians and editors whose opinions I trust and respect. In my experience this is one of the best places to have a a collegial and informative discussion, among many knowledgeable and thoughtful people who care deeply about the wonderful thing this encyclopedia is and represents, in an attempt to come to some consensus about how a given issue might best be resolved for the good of the encyclopedia and its readers.
2. Yes they are separate (but related) issues. I don't know what you mean when you say I combined them. To my mind I simply started a discussion about both at the same time.
3. You liked my contest? Although prizes have been awarded, I'm still accepting entries. If you just want the back-story, see this discussion and this edit
4. You may have a bit of a misconception as to what this project is about and how this page operates — I invite you to browse the archives listed above to to get some sense of that. It is very unlikely that any "instructions" would attempt to be given, or "rules" be written. What might happen is the kind of collegial, informative and consensus-building discussion, I mentioned above — or not. This particular discussion has gotten off to a bad start (for which I am willing to accept the blame), but I have a lot of confidence in the participants of this page and I still have hope.

Regards, Paul August ☎ 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for you answers. I did enjoy what I saw of your contest, and seeing the background made me appreciate it even more—especially your "winning" entry, which made no sense to me when I first read it (but I figured there had to be a story behind it). Also, very seriously, I thought your take on the joke block messages was spot-on as a statement of good policy. It's helpful to have a sense of humor (I sometimes need to be reminded of that), but not to make a joke of how Wikipedia regards the privilege of editing the encyclopedia. I do wish my introduction to this project had been under more cordial circumstances. I have started following this page (I also follow Project Physics). Thanks again. Finell (Talk) 18:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed my contest and agree with my comments at ANI, and welcome to the project (if you want please list and introduce yourself here. Now I've got a question for you in the new section below (Oh no a new section!) Paul August ☎ 19:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And now a question for Finell (or others)

By my reading and reckoning, eleven editors (listed below with excerpted quotes) have expressed some level of concern with respect to these infoboxes:

1. Paul August: "... it [the infobox at e (mathematical constant)] doesn't seem to me to add much of use to the article (as well as the fact that the links listed seem a bit arbitrary) ..." [1]
2. Oleg Alexandrov: "I believe the pi infobox is pretty frivolous for a lot of reasons. First, putting links to list of numbers and irrational number is not informative. Second, linking to other "irrational" numbers is unnecessary. Third, pi's hexadecimal and binary expansions add absolutely no insights into the nature of this number. Neither does the continued fraction expansion (that would make sense for numbers where the continued fraction expansion has a pattern or defines the number). Ditto about the rational approximations. All in all, while some people may think infoboxes are pretty and summarize some properties, this particular one adds no value I can see. I'd say we should cut it out." [2]
3. Ozob: "... The irrational numbers infobox is silly, and the pi infobox is obnoxious. Both should be removed." [3]
4. Hans Adler: "It seems to me that these particular infoboxes, even more than infoboxes in general, are just infotainment. I don't mind them very strongly, but I am also inclined towards removing them." [4]
5. RDBury: "What is "rational approximations" ... supposed to mean? Isn't 3.14 a rational approximation? I was thinking it would be the best approximations for a given bound on the denominator, but then the entire list would be 3/1, 13/4, 16/5, 19/6, 22/7, 179/57, 201/64, 223/71, 245/78, 267/85, 289/92, 311/99, 333/106, 355/113, ... which is a lot more than what's listed. It's kind of a general problem with infoboxes that no one seems to check that they're accurate." [5]
6. Shreevatsa: "While it is clear that the infobox adds no insight about the nature of π and is of no value to mathematicians (and also that its location in the article is distracting and "obnoxious"), perhaps we should check if the binary and hexadecimal forms are of any use to, say, programmers (why were they put there in the first place?). About infoboxes in general, there is nothing wrong with infotainment per se; articles don't have to cater only to readers who actually read the whole thing (who are a tiny minority, of course). :-)" [6]
7. RobinK: "... The hexadecimal representation of pi is probably completely useless to everyone." [7]
8. Algebraist: "Do you intend to address any of the arguments above that the so-called "useful information" is in fact largely useless?" [8]
9. RobHar: "That is really a completely absurd list of "irrational numbers". There's no link between them and how are α and δ even on such a list. I find ζ(2) much more interesting than ζ(3), for example. I find the argument against that infobox is more that it's an absurd list. A more suitable list would be like a list of numbers that have been studied for forever (π, e, φ, √2, -1, i)." [9]
10. David Eppstein: "... Why do we include γ(3) but not γ(2)? Because it's a trivial variation of π? But then why do we include both √5 and φ when they're trivial variations of each other. Why do we include base 2 and base 16 but not base 60 or base 1329? Etc. It's a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, and it doesn't add anything useful to the text of the article." [10]
11. Charles Matthews: " ...[a case needs to be set out] that the boxes in question do more than a category would. For myself I'm not convinced." [11]

So a question for Finell (or others): how do you propose that we should address or accommodate these editor's concerns?

Paul August ☎ 19:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to address opinions about "usefulness"; clearly, these boxes won't be of much use to mathematicians, who are well represented in this project. But usefulness is not a criterion for inclusion, is it? Dicklyon (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If the infoboxes do not appear to provide useful information (either to mathematician or to non-mathematicians), then they should not be there. Unnecessary and unhelpful trivia degrades the quality of articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying they're likely to be much more useful to, and/or appreciated by, the typical lay reader than anyone here will admit. We could perhaps test that theory by opening a conversation at the article, as opposed to at the project, if you want (e.g. at Pi or Golden ratio). It's probably true that those articles consist mostly of "unhelpful trivia", but as I said, that's not a criterion for inclusion; as long as things are relevant and sourced, we pretty much just tolerate them, since otherwise we'd be having battling opinions about usefulness. Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What about WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Paul August ☎ 22:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me on that one; except I don't see how you think it applies to the infoboxes we're discussing. Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the standards enumerated in that guideline restrict the use of infoboxes like these. —Finell (Talk) 23:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to group those numbers together in an infobox. They are very different. By the way, this discussion is going nowhere, although I see a clear majority of folks supporting removing the infoboxes. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason to group together the ones that are grouped together in the reliable source I pointed out above. Let's do that if you don't like it the way it is. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. As I've seen earlier, this formum is not very appropriate for decisions, it has been like a talking shop with no conclusion. I went ahead and created that template of irrational numbers and transcluded it into each article, as it should have been, since that's shared information. I hope there is no disagreement here. I plan to nominate it for deletion at some point to have a dedicated formum where this can be decided. That way all the Wikipedia procedures will be followed. I'll have a separate announcement when I'll find time to tfd the thing. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, a TfD is not the place to discuss inclusion issues I think; that should happen on the articles' talk pages. See the previous tfD, which was closed as "wrong forum". Shreevatsa (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right in saying that the fate of individual infoboxes should be discussed at the corresponding article talk pages. However, I am focusing on the issue involving the particular list of several irrational numbers showing at a lot of articles as part of those infoboxes (which contain a lot of other info). The question here is whether those listed irrational numbers belong together. You can't discuss that issue on the talk page of each individual article that list shows up at, there should be a centralized place. At best, you can discuss it at the talk page of the template itself {{Irrational numbers}}. I am open to suggestions. I hope there is no disagreement on the fact that the template itself was created, this avoids the redundancy of having the same list of things in a lot of places. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

A more constructive way to deal with the "particular list" issue would be to make the changes to use a list from a source, as I suggested above. We should try that, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The list from the source you suggested above isn't great. You yourself have made interpretations on which of the constants listed in that source are actually important. RobHar (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see why all the articles must have the same list at all. For example, √3 may want to list √2 and √5, but π may not want to list √5. The question of which articles may be of related interest to a curious reader does not have a common (or well-defined) answer, but that's OK. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Uniform Polychora Project RfD

If you are interested, please see the discussion relating to the proposed deletion of the article Uniform Polychora Project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDBury (talk • contribs)

Evidently the article was deleted. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Elementary proof on AfD

The article Elementary proof has been nominated for deletion.  --Lambiam 14:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It closed with the result keep. —Finell (Talk) 11:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Relative canonical model

Relative canonical model could certainly use some work to bring it into line with Wikipedia's usual usages and standards. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I took a look and couldn't even figure out what field it belongs in. The tag says geometry but that wasn't on my list of guesses. But before anyone spends a lot of time on it, make sure it satisfies notability criteria. In this case there seems to be some secondary material on the subject, but maybe it should be part of a larger article to give it more context.--RDBury (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly notable. The notation for dualising sheaves has gone undefined there, and the lead isn't adequate. What is going on is that this is the "relative" version of the canonical ring in algebraic geometry. More context needed, certainly, but a proper lead section should be enough. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Commutative matrix multiplication

The article commutative matrix multiplication needs help. There are no sources that actually refer to the material in the article (there are two sources that seem to have nothing to do with the subject), and I suspect that it may be original research. The definition itself is rather dubious, only making sense for positive definite self-adjoint matrices, although the article certainly suggests that it makes sense for all matrices. Could someone who knows more about this sort of thing please try to track down some quality sources to base the article on? The only other avenue seems to be deletion. 71.182.236.76 (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the article has already been turned into a redirect. I'm not 100% convinced this was appropriate, since there are facts about commuting matrices that don't have anything to do with Lie products, for instance the theorem about simultaneous triangularisation.--RDBury (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:R.e.b.'s redirect for now. The article as it existed had absolutely nothing to do with commuting matrices (which are of course important, and probably treated elsewhere on this encyclopedia). Rather it attempted to describe a new "product" of matrices that was commutative. 71.182.236.76 (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What's not clear to me, though, is why it would make sense for someone searching or linking the phrase commutative matrix multiplication to be dumped at the Lie-product article. From R.e.b.'s edit summary I suspect he may have been overly influenced by the previous content of the commutative matrix multiplication article. When doing a redirect, the previous content is irrelevant; the only questions are: (i) Is there an article that it makes sense to link the phrase to? and (ii) is that a sufficiently canonical target? If the answer to (i) is "no", then your only options are to delete or improve the existing article. If the answer to (ii) is "no", consider a disambig page. --Trovatore (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

New article on a living person

Although I have read the guidelines (WP:PROF) for creating articles on living people, I thought that I should seek clarification here. The article I wish to create is on the mathematician (topologist) Jan Van Mill (no current article). Quite a few topologists have Wikipedia articles already (mostly, differential topologists), and I think that Jan Van Mill, an important general topologist, set-theoretic topologist, dimension theorist et cetera, should have an article as well. He is already widely referenced on many articles in abstract topology (or at least in those articles that I have read), and is the co-editor of the famous "Open Problems in Topology" series; an excellent series on general topology which deserves an article as well. According to the WP:PROF guidelines, I think Van Mill should have an article, being a highly influential topologist. Are there any objections to this, or opinions as to whether there should be an article on the Open Problems in Topology series? --PST 02:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As co-editor-in-chief of Topology and its Applications he clearly passes WP:PROF #8. He likely also passes #1 on the strength of his own publications but that's a harder case to make. Be sure to mention the editorship in the article (you can use this link as a source). As for the series: if you can find reliably-published sources about the series, rather than just citations to works in the series, then go ahead, but otherwise it might be better not. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you have sources that establish notability, it should be no question. Go for it. And your signature appears to be broken. Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The "PS" in my signature directs to my user page, and the "T" in my signature directs to my talk page. --PST 08:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for the clarification (and the link). I will look to create the article within the next couple of days, and return here with an update. --PST 08:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your PST signature is indistinguishable from black text, there is no sign that is is a link, and one would not think to hover over it. —Finell (Talk) 11:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure, however, that it is not really worthwhile to click on it anyhow - my userpage is not that interesting... --PST 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the browser. On my browser PST is black but underlined by a blue line (and clickable). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It should depend on your preferences (Appearance->Advanced options->Underline links) rather than the browser, the CSS in use is (in theory at least) unambiguous and cross-browser portable. — Emil J. 11:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Advice please

Where should speed maths redirect to, if anywhere? Thanks a lot—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Mental calculation looks sensible: already has one section on a competition. If competitive mental calculation ever is worth an article, it could be pointed there. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Minus signs

There's a proposal to replace − by a template that would display a hyphen in some other font: the font is intended to preserve the visual appearance of the minus sign while using a hyphen instead of an actual minus-sign character allows in-text searching for the number to work (the expectation being that people who search for something are going to type the hyphen and their browser won't match it against the minus sign). Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Reword to prefer minus-key on numeric keypad (the section title is left over from someone's misunderstanding — they thought that the minus sign on the numeric keyboard was a true minus-sign character when in fact it is just the hyphen again) and weigh in with your opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny endash

Just in case everyone wants to think about something unimportant, how 'bout this: this edit is correct per WP:MOS except for a certain publishing company's name. Guess what? Some people don't know any German. Such people may even think that Springer–Verlag is a company named after two people, one named Springer and the other named Verlag. (And I've even heard people pronounce the name with "v" sounding like that in "very" and "g" like that in "dog".) Translations of "Verlag" into English may be found here. The initial "V" is capital because in German all nouns begin with capital initial letters. It's named after a person named Springer. This way of using a hyphen is standard in German. People who prefer to devote their attention to enterprises of great pith and moment are hereby instructed to ignore these comments. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I right in remembering that North-Holland publishers also has a hyphen instead of an en dash? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so, since it is not publishing by North and Holland, but a publisher in "North Holland", a province in the Netherlands. (TimothyRias (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Oh dear, and I've so much trouble with 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' ;-) I'll have to read that MOS again. Dmcq (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have, or perhaps we already have, a 'this is correct' tag to put round things like that? Dmcq (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I found one under the obvious name, but it's a bit too heavy weight for this purpose. E.g. you could write {{sic|hide=y|Springer-Verlag}} and it appears simply as Springer-Verlag. Hans Adler 13:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

North-Holland is a funny case, perhaps. In English, we'd use hyphens in compounds used as adjectives, but not when they involve proper names; like we don't hyphenate Golden-Gate bridge for the bridge over the golden gate. But maybe North-Holland is based on the German convention instead of the English? I usually fix things like Bose–Einstein to use the en dash, but I don't mess with publishers like Addison-Wesley, since the overwhelming evidence is that they use the hyphen in their own name, for whatever reason. But I see now that Michael Hardy updated them to en dash, too, earlier this year, and nobody objected, so I guess that's OK. I'd want to verify at least that Addison and Wesley were real people. Dicklyon (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an Anglo-American difference. The eighteenth-century adjective represented in New-York harbour was retained longer in British English, and has been supported by the argument (made in Modern English Usage and elsewhere) that it is useful to distinguish the adjective New-York from the noun New York - and in the instant case, the adjective North-Holland from the proper name North Holland. Anybody who endashes such a form is an illiterate pedant - and is therefore perfectly suited to that waste of electrons which calls itself the Manual of Style. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely you mean an Anglo–American difference! Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to argue that the MOS is a waste of electrons, this present issue might be a good example to cite, but MOS is needed. Every academic journal you might ever submit a paper to, and every book publisher you might submit a manuscript to, has a MOS. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It is very likely that we could use a page of redommendations, based on consensus and English usage; but WP:MOS is not it. Will it ever be? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not really important, but I'm confused by what you mean by "(And I've even heard people pronounce the name with "v" sounding like that in "very" and "g" like that in "dog".)". Surely the "V" in "Verlag" is pronounced as an English "f", but do you mean that it's incorrect to pronounce the "g" the same way as the "g" in "dog"? Compare wikt:en:Verlag with wikt:en:Dog. Aenar (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll never hear a g-as-in-dog at the end of a word in standard modern German. Nor any voiced plosive or voiced fricative consonant. E.g. in "Deutschland" the final "d" is pronounced like the first "t" in "night rate", not like the first "t" in "nitrate". But the initial "D" is as in "dog". And the "s" in "Hans" is like the "ce" in "once" or "twice"; it's the "s" sound in "ass", not the "s" sound in "as". Michael Hardy (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe, in German, if a word ends with a "g" it is pronounced with the sound of "k." For instance the German word for day -- Tag -- would be pronounced somewhat like "tahk." --Robin (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a range of correct pronunciations for the 'g' in dog in various variants of English, and there is a similar range for the 'g' in Tag and Verlag (both are the same, really) in German. I am sure that they overlap significantly, although they also overlap with 'k' sounds. The 'g' in words ending in -ig is different in educated German and North German dialects (but not in the more significant South German dialects), where the sound is as in German ich. Hans Adler 20:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

@Aenar: compare wikt:de:Verlag with wikt:en:Verlag, and guess which of the two is more likely to be wrong. — Emil J. 12:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I did an anonymous edit to the Wiktionary entry, changing the "g" to a "k". Someone reverted with no explanation. I changed it back to a "k" and then logged in and commented on the entry's talk page. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

One non-obvious thing is that an IPA transcription between square brackets means something different than one between slashes. The German and English wiktionaries seem to have differing conventions about which to use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. And yeah, good idea to look at wikt:de:Verlag. Aenar (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is weird: someone at Wiktionary is expecting readers to understand that the pronunciation is reported as a "g", it's because it's pronounced that way in the plural "Verlage" and becomes a "k" when it's at the end only because of a regular pattern of German pronunciation. If he were right to expect people to understand that without being told, then certain parts of this present discussion could not have happened. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

....omigod.....readers of Wiktionary are apparently expected to know the difference between // and [] in reporting pronunciations. Writing [k] means that's how it's always pronounced and similarly for [g]. But writing /g/ means it's pronounced that way in things like the genitive Verlages or the plural Verlage, but when it's at the end of a word, then it follows regular patterns of the German language and the pronunciation gets changed according to those patterns, so then it's pronounced [k].

I've brought this up on Wiktionary's page on the conventions followed in its German-to-English entries. I had no idea I was opening a can of worms here. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I asked a linguist and got an answer to the effect that [...] = how to pronounce it and /.../ = of interest to professional linguists only... :) — Miym (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And yet /.../ is what they used. I understand what it means (and there's one other participant in WikiProject Mathematics who I know knows what it means), but I didn't know the conventions until I brought this matter up. "Of interest to professional linguists only" seems like an exaggeration. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's more like "of interest only to those who are already familiar with the language, or at least its phonological system". — Emil J. 13:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

List of nascent delta functions on AfD

Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_nascent_delta_functions. Le Docteur (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What to do with article invalid proof

I realize that there is some innate reluctance in some Wikipedia editors to remove any information from an article, no matter how inappropriate it is. I would like, therefore, to bring the state of the article Invalid proof to a wider audience. While I think that it is possible to have an encyclopedia article on this topic, it will look nothing like the present article, which is an endless litany of invalid proofs (many of which are likely WP:OR). I would like to set forth the possibility of transwikiing most of this content to Wikibooks and removing it from the Wikipedia article, but I'm not sure how to bring the issue up to obtain a wider consensus on the matter. Is an RfC the appropriate course of action? Please help, 74.98.44.216 (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have called it mathematical fallicies instead but from a quick look I would say I have seem most of it and there's been books about this. Therefore the subject is notable and the entries are verifiable. Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way it's missing my favourite which is that all cats are the same colour. Dmcq (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should exist (and be named "mathematical fallacies"). What I disagree with is the need to have dozens of examples of fallacies, many of which are trivial invariants of one another, and some of which are pretty obvious WP:OR. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. By the way, most of the entries are not verified by the books that are referenced in the article. They should be removed as WP:OR (or, gently, transwikied to Wikibooks), and only restored once references have been given. There is enough to say about mathematical fallacies without relying on indiscriminate original research. 74.98.44.216 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think the first step would be to label the individual proofs with either a citation or a citation needed tag and put a warning on the talk page that the ones with citation needed would be removed after a week. If they find a citation later they can always drag them up from the history. That would chop it down somewhat. I see mathematical fallacies actually does go to that page. I'll have to think about it. Invalid proofs sounds to me like it should include things like the original failed proof of the four colour theorem whereas fallacies doesn't and perhaps both should be included. Dmcq (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

With regard to your last observation, I agree completely. The article is about what is commonly known in the literature as "mathematical fallacies". It seems to be in the spirit of the article naming convention to go with that instead. Whereas an article entitled "invalid proof" could one day exist, it would probably be better off as a disambiguation page including "mathematical fallacy" as one of the options. 74.98.44.216 (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a standard book Fallacies in Mathematics by Edwin Arthur Maxwell. It is more interested in geometry than algebra, really. But it is appropriately cited in the article. "Invalid proof" as title is less common but possibly more accurate than "mathematical fallacy": something like affirming the consequent is the application of a non-existent logical rule, while the usual trick of dividing by zero is a kind of sleight of hand, exploiting an exception to a rule that is often left tacit. The article does need taking in hand a bit. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the article can be reworked for a more encyclopedic treatment or renamed to reflect the current content more appropriately. The content itself however is imho mostly ok and doesn't really have a WP:OR problem. Most of that are well known examples and the article contains a few references as well. Hence I'd prefer to keep the content in WP rather than moving it somewhere else within Wikimedia.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have moved it, since mathematical fallacies is indeed the traditional nomenclature. I've rewritten the lead, and cut some examples that seemed marginal. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Continued fractions

User talk:Glenn L is sticking in loads of continued fractions into Cube root and Nth root. I think they are over the top and the source doesn't look very notable. I'm not sure what to say to say and I don't think I'm very diplomatic, would somebody else like to have a look thanks? Dmcq (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly out of place in a main article, since pretty much no one who reads the article is likely to have any use for explicit continued fraction expansions. A new article that consolidates this material might be more suitable for the specialist. Continued fraction expansion of nth roots or something like it? 74.98.44.216 (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

With one example in the article cube root, perhaps, making the point that such continued fractions are neither periodic nor predictable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The example given would fit in fine at doubling the cube, making a point about rational approximation to the cube root of 2. I would probably just move the cube root example over there, and reverse the order so that the general algebraic formula given appears in the special case first. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Another potential target would be the (somewhat stubby) article nth root algorithm, although for that someone would need to track down better sources linking the two notions. 71.182.248.124 (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a thread at Talk:Cube root. The continued fraction section is obviously out of place there, but User:Glenn L is lobbying heavily for its inclusion. Le Docteur (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Penrose tiling at GAN

Hey guys. If any of you have done GA reviews and aren't busy, this article's been waiting for three months now. I'm completely unfamiliar with the area else I'd take a crack at it, plus you'd understand the material better. Wizardman 22:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Formal systems again

In the process of the inconclusive discussion on whether this should be titled Logical systems, several problems with the article were discussed; it's another of GregBard's -er- idiosyncratic articles. Would someone who is fresher on the subject go in and fix it? The owner has turned up and is complaining. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference management software

I guess many of the people here have a large collection of research papers on their hard drive. I know there are many organization tools available to manage all these papers, but is there any tool which can also output citations in Wikipedia's citation format (in addition to being able to output citations in some standard format like Bibtex)? --Robin (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been recently trying Zotero, which can export both to Wikipedia's citation format and to BibTeX. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Theorem

Could someone else look over Theorem? The introductory sentence has been changed to

"A theorem is an idea, concept or abstraction token instances of which are formed using a string of symbols according to both the syntactic rules of a language (also called its grammar) and the transformation rules of a formal system."

Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If I were to guess, without looking, who made this change, would I guess correctly? --Trovatore (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: I guessed correctly. Hans Adler 22:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I also guessed correctly. --Robin (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's flipping ridiculous for Wikipedia. I've certainly come to appreciate from Wikipedia that there's a lot of people out there with a completely different mindset. Dmcq (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I instantly had a guess as to who it is (haven't checked yet, though). Why don't we change the article titled waterfall so that its opening sentence says:

In fluid mechanics, a waterfall is a system of partial differential equations of the form......

Michael Hardy (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you consider that possibility that it isn't "mind set:" but rather "subject matter." I welcome any cooperation in coming to an agreeable formulation. However, a wholesale delete doesn't help do that. I propose we go line by line in the expanded formulation. I think I have provided enough of the fundamentals to provide a place for all further aspects of the topic in the article. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I will consider this; what subject do you claim to be representing? More importantly, what source in that subject do you claim to follow? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see talking has done no good. What you have put in has unbalanced the whole article badly away from what people normally mean by a theorem. I agree with the wholescale revert. Dmcq (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What Gregbard changed it to is (1) nonsense, and (2) philosophically POV. Mathematical logic may model theorems as things of the kind Gregbard described, but to say that a theorem is that, is to say, among other unjustified things, that that mathematical model is the last word on the topic. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I see he has set up a fork Theorem (logic) instead. I think that might be reasonable but of course it would need somebody to check it from that point of view. Dmcq (talk)

Among other problems, the lead sentence above seems purposely obtuse. Here for comparison is the introductory sentence from Britannica: "in mathematics and logic, a proposition or statement that is demonstrated." Paul August ☎ 23:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No philosophy just sometimes seems like it is stating the obvious, when there actually is a deeper meaning. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly a forbidden POV fork. I have redirected it back to theorem. --Trovatore (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to correct this false belief. It is not any POV, it is subject matter, whereas your deleting it is in fact motivated by POV (with respect, Trov.).Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No, Greg, you're wrong. You have repeatedly made edits based on the idea that the notion of theorem in logic is purely the syntactic one. But that is factually incorrect. Logicians have been talking about theorems for millennia, long before there was any syntactic notion of logic.

You have done this over and over again -- claiming that your particular point of view is the one relating to "logic" or "philosophy", and that it's also "more general". But all three claims are false. Logicians and philosophers run the spectrum from realist to formalist just as do mathematicians. And your viewpoint is actually more restrictive, not more general, because it does not contemplate theorems proved informally, or for that matter even those proved semantically. --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree. Fundamentally it is syntactic, and is given an interpretation. I don't know how I can make that more clear. Furthermore, I am not interested in limiting the notion to its formalized sense, however much can be elucidated for the reader by following the formal notion. If you take a look at the section titled "Interpretation of a theorem" you will se the counterexample you need to put the issue to rest. " $\blacksquare$ $\bigstar$ $\blacksquare$ $\blacksquare$ $\blacksquare$ $\blacklozenge$ $\blacksquare$ $\blacksquare$ $\blacksquare$ $\blacksquare$ " is a theorem. It's interpretation is "1+3=4." Usually when you come up with a counterexample, that ends the debate. I am not sure why it does not in this case. Stay cool Trov.

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Counterexample to what exactly? I certainly have not claimed that there is no such thing as a formal theorem. --Trovatore (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The counterexample demonstrates that

A bunch of squares and triangles put together in the most basic possible formal system shows that what is really going on is that syntax is being given an interpretation whenever you construct a theorem. Is there any theorem you can show me that does not hold this quality? Even the ones you only think about can still be said to be moving symbols (neural activity) around in your brain, and the neural activity is being interpreted as a theorem. (I wouldn't use that example in an article however.) This is a fundamental understanding Trov.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you try that again, in English, please? There are a bunch of things that look like English words in what you wrote but they're not coming together into a meaning for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I will try it again if you can be more specific. What exactly do you not understand?

Everything after "A bunch of squares and triangles". —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Greg, you are taking here a particular position in philosophy of mind. By no means do all philosophers agree. For one thing, you have explicit substance dualists (like David Chalmers), and those with more nuanced positions (such as John Searle, whose position I personally have never managed to figure out what it is; nevertheless he's a noted philosopher). Even eliminative materialists might well object to your formulation; though — while they would agree that at bottom all that's going on is symbols moving around in the brain, that is still very different from saying that the proof of the theorem consists of a sequence of strings of symbols, starting with formal axioms and following fixed inference rules.

But even this goes too far afield; we don't need to consider philosophy of mind at all in considering the content and naming issues for these articles. It suffices to note that you are trying to impose a restrictive notion of what constitutes a theorem in the field of philosophical logic, and claim that it is more general. Philosophical logic is not in fact so restrictive. --Trovatore (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Gregbard, if "syntax is being given an interpretation whenever you construct a theorem", then that means your proposed definition of "theorem" is wrong. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you disagree. You're entitled to disagree. You're not entitled to present your understanding as "the" logical or philosophical notion, when it is clearly not. --Trovatore (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What exactly makes it clear? A bunch of wikipedia editors say so? You need to actually look into academically Trov. Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to Pmanderson, civilly posed question, The subject I claim to be representing is logic. This is to say that logic is well known and accepted as a field within Philosophy, and philosophers such as Carnap, Quine, Putnam, Mendelson, Mates, Smullyan all take the same "view" that I am taking. The source I use is Hunter's Metalogic because it is representive of that subject matter. It has been called by some of you "idiosyncratic", but that can't be the case with all those others considering the same subject matter. These are ideas that we are talking about. When mathematicians use them they are marks of ink on a page. To answer Hardy, with respect, you are specifically incorrect, and this is well known and accepted. Theorems are ideas. Period. Your marks on the page are token instances of those ideas. This clarification avoids paradox in talking about these ideas in language. This is the responsible thing to do, also. It is the same as when someone goes through math articles making sure all the formulas are in italics because use-mention is distinguished. To neglect that is not responsible in the same way as neglecting the type-token distinction. I don't see why there is so much investment in fighting the one, but not the other. they are both metalogical distinctions that should be accounted for in all appropriate math articles.

If we can't get along, then we should just split it like formation rules, theory, symbol, syntax and many others have been. Be well all. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a guideline about forking at Wikipedia:Content forking. It should not be done because people cannot agree, it should be done because the subject matter forks. Dmcq (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should not be done because people cannot agree. However there is more going on here. These people are just claiming that the content just isn't math or (in their minds just isn't logic). That isn't just a disagreement on the content, but on just what the subject matter of the article is. If we don't have an understanding about even that much, then it is perfectly reasonable to say that these topics will be covered under a different subject matter. Call it philosophy, philosophical logic or just logic or whatever. The problem I have is the wholesale deletion of legitimate subject matter from a different field just because it doesn't fit someone's image of their own field of study. If they feel that way, then that's fine. But why begrudge those who do make an academic study of these aspects of it. That's POV to demand deletion, rather than putting the material in the appropriate place. We have been through this before, and sometimes the material is accepted in (like in Formal language) and sometimes there needs to be a split (like theory and theory (mathematical logic). It would be more productive to make changes to individual lines rather than wholesale deletion. Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My impression was of major weight and point of view problems, not subject matter. I agree that theorems in mathematical logic is a big enough subject to write an article about on its own though. I get the feeling you have lost sight of what the aim of wikipedia is which is to produce an encyclopaedia of a consensus of notable current knowledge, see WP:Five pillars. It is not a publishing house. Dmcq (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hunter

Despite the use of it here, Geoffrey Hunter's Metalogic: an introduction to the metatheory of standard first order logic is a perfectly reasonable book on the foundations of mathematics, which GregBard has misunderstood thoroughly; I hope he is not taking a course either in first order logic or in metaphysics.

Hunter distinguishes, properly, between a theorem in a formal system "a string of formulas in a formal language that satisfies certain formal requirements and has no meaning" and a theorem in a metalanguage: "a true statement about the system, expressed in the metalanguage".

Greg Bard, knowing neither mathematics or philosophy, appears to be attempting to roll these into one statement. Hunter also chooses to define a "formula" as an equivalence class of well-formed strings, rather than as a member of the class; this is where the bafflegab about "tokens" comes from. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would you feel the need to insult me were it not for excessive pride? This is an uncalled-for insult and disparagement. I am perfectly clear on syntactic and semantic aspects of a theorem as demonstrated in the syntax and semantics section of the article. It does not appear that anyone else knows anything about it, since it is not covered in any article heretofore. Can you actually point to some "rolled up" statement or are your just unfairly trying characterize me? It's a big straw man. Why exactly do we need to get into how stupid people are and how its always that I just don't know anything about what I am talking about. That line of exaggerated, insulting rhetoric is exactly what the mathematoisis article is all about. It seems you are incapable of a nuanced conversation at all. Everything is black and white with you. You should apologize and redeem yourself with a civil discussion of the issue. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't insult you; I described you. That you regard the distinction between a well-formed string and the class of equivalent well-formed strings as more than an arbitrary choice demonstrates that you do not understand the mathematics of this subject; that you have chosen the clumsier of the two isomorphic ways of expressing the subject and insist upon it is one of the things Quine meant by mathematosis. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well actually yes you are very insulting. Have you even considered backing down from this attitude? I have offered many many chances in this discussion to begin again civilly and you continue to insult. You have chosen to hone in on something trivial only for the purpose of disparaging my credibility. That's uncivil. For myself I am willing to let the discussion itself be all the evidence of your credibility. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered that we are not here to offer a home for your point of view? Try Wikibooks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not POV its subject matter. Your belief that it is POV is consistent with mathematosis however. I don't mean to insult by that. Objectively, if one just believes themselves to be right like a religious believer, one will see any criticism as POV not analysis. At least you have made a statement that is not uncivil for once. I invite your respectful communication. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Throwing this term around is clearly detrimental to the project. I look forward to the day when the article, template, and essay are all deleted. Le Docteur (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Formal theorem

Greg has put the same content at formal theorem — this I think is actually reasonable by and large. At least it does not subsume Greg's personal POV into the name itself; everyone would agree that the notion described is that of a formal theorem. Still it needs POV-checking as regards the details of the description; also I think the hatnote is a bit problematic in how it's worded. --Trovatore (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think you are being way overly harsh claiming I am POV pushing. If there are ever issues like that (for real) I am always responsive to them. However just covering the material is not POV. There certainly no justification for deleting the whole contribution. That was just lazy, in not doing the work to improve it to your satisfaction. If it just could not be saved to your satisfaction, that's POV pushing by rescission. How is it that all this material that was to be deleted is now all of a sudden "reasonable by and large." I think some people have very irresponsible methods for contributing to WP around here. The most reasonable person I deal with is CBM who actually makes an effort to reformulate things he doesn't like...and yet even he has done a chop job on Tautology (logic). At least he provides substantial talk page justification which I can respond to. Looking forward to productive edits. Be well all. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Greg, I have never objected to covering the notion of a formal theorem (though I strongly suspect it's already covered somewhere else; not sure where exactly). My objection was to the claim that the notion is "more general", or that it's what theorem means by default in the field of logic, or philosophy, or philosophical logic. --Trovatore (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, stating that a theorem is primarily an idea is absolutely, and certainly more general than stating that it is something that is "proved" or "true" or whatever other baggage you want to add to it. Every theorem is an idea, and that is as general a description as it gets. When you guys insist that its "true" or "proved" that is not a more general definition than the one that includes a string of meaningless squares and triangles. I am sorry but this could not be more clear. I don't understand what our big conflict is. I too, do not want to restrict the article to theorems of a formal language. I wish to identify it generally and then get more specific later in the article. The use of formal language is only a convenience in communicating these ideas. There is nothing unusual about that at all. Stay cool. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I...do not want to restrict.... I wish to identify it generally and then get more specific.... Say what? You want to identify it generally by restricting it first, then get more specific later by liberalizing it? --Trovatore (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Greg, even if you were technically correct, your beginning would be the most abstract approach to the subject. We don't do that; Manifold does not begin with diffeomorphism or equivalence class. Wikipedia is not Nicholas Bourbaki; we do not assume that our readers already know the subject and need to see it done right.

I also deny that you are correct; citing Carnap and Quine as agreeing on the nature of a statement (let alone the nature of a theorem) demonstrates that you have misunderstood at least one of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Straw man. Quine and Carnap don't agree on everything (nature of logical truth, statements, et al) however they do agree that the type v token is an important distinction. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Gregbard, even if your proposed definition of "theorem" were not silly nonsense, the fact is that that kind of material doesn't belong in the introductory sentence of a Wikipedia article. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And that I can fully agree with. The start at least of that article should be phrased so a twelve year old told about theorems at school can look that up and understand a reasonable amount. Dmcq (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at Formal proof as I thought it would cover the same sort of area as Formal theorem should and I see he's gone and utterly changed that as well. Dmcq (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Easy enough to fix. If any third party thinks some of Greg's new stuff is an improvement, they should put it back in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Mathematosis

The less I say the better: {{mathematosis}} !? Le Docteur (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I sent it to TfD. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Mathematosis. Comments are welcome there. Ray^Talk 03:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent merger of Category:Differential geometry and Category:Differential topology

Someone just moved Category:Differential geometry to Category:Differential geometry and topology and has, apparently, been changing all of the old Category:Differential geometry entries to Category:Differential geometry and topology. To me this seems like a step in the wrong direction. Although it may be that it is difficult to draw a bright line between the two subjects, they should not be lumped together like this. If consensus develops to revert this rather large-scale change, then it will involve quite a bit of undo-ing. I thought I should post here for more input. Le Docteur (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea may have been to include differential topology, as though it were disjoint from diff. geom.

• I'm not sure how the cat was moved. I agree it's a mistake; but it will require more than undoing to fix; several purely topological articles (like hairy ball theorem) have fallen into it. (We have a separate article called Brouwer's fixed point theorem, which is in none of these cats.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree this is a mistake. To think that Mazur manifolds, Massey products, cobordism and Morse theory are part of differential geometry, or that differential geometry and differential topology are indistinguishable is a major disservice to readers. Rybu (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that this should be changed back. Topology (differential or not) is a subject distinct from differential geometry, and not much related. There are more reasons to merge differential geometry with algebraic geometry (Kaehler manifolds) or with metric geometry (CAT spaces and Gromov's theory), but this patricular merge is just unacceptable. Tiphareth (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• On a similar note, why are the words "geometry" and "topology" interchanged so frequently in WP mathematics articles? Topology also consists of branches such as set-theoretic topology, point-set topology, continuum theory and the like (apart from algebraic and differential topology), and writing otherwise gives a false impression about the distribution of researchers in topology.

On a different note, a formal definition of "geometry" probably does not exist, and thus we should perhaps allow overlaps between "geometry" and other subjects when categorizing. However, I agree that there should not be "intersection categories" such as the one most recently created by User:Gvozdet. --PST 09:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the problem could be solved more expediently by someone with rollback rights. (Is that correct?) User:Gvozdet's last several hundred contributions appear to be for the purpose of populating this category. Le Docteur (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that Rybu's reverts of Gvozdet's edits were subsequently reverted by Gvozdet himself. Therefore, we should perhaps inform User:Gvozdet about this thread. --PST 09:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was the first thing I did after starting the tread. By the way Gvozdet is now moving all differential topology articles to Category:Differential geometry and topology. Le Docteur (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I added a note to his page that trhis sort of thing should go through WP:Categories for discussion first. Also if it is approved it is best to use a bot for anything substantial. Dmcq (talk)

For small renames (say 5-10 articles), I generally prefer to just let people do them, since they can be rolled back so easily. This move does seem large enough that it should be discussed beforehand. But I think CfD is a bad place to discuss such things; it's better to try to get some people more familiar with the content to discuss the move. An announcement here is more likely to find interested people than an announcement at CfD, and then the discussion could take place anywhere. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well when I was doing one before I put a notice onto the talk pages of the main articles in the category as well as there was no associated project. But having a bot do the job at the end is a real bonus. Dmcq (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in category merges and renames one can simply add {{Category redirect}} templates on category pages, announce the plan e.g. here, wait for one week, and a bot will do everything automatically. And during the one-week cooldown period anyone who opposes the merge/rename can simply remove the redirection template and there is no need to undo anything. I don't really believe in CfD if a category is, e.g., related to a narrow topic (like mathematics). Too much bureaucracy, it is so much easier to discuss the plan on relevant project pages. — Miym (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I might not be clear enough. The problem is not just that an individual category was renamed, but that two categories were merged. The likely outcome of this discussion is that the categories will need to be un-merged. Is the bot smart enough to handle this? Le Docteur (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit unclear. I mean that if we had used this approach (place {{Category redirect}}, announce here, and simply wait for one week), then we wouldn't have the current situation, as someone could have removed the templates before the bot merges the categories. So this is not a solution to the problem at hand, just a suggestion of how to do category redirects/merges in future (without going through CfD). — Miym (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Ok, that puts your original post in a whole new light for me. ;-) Le Docteur (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is CfD the best avenue to set things right once again? There are about 400 pages that need fixing. Le Docteur (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's start by getting an agreement about the right name, before we edit any more. I can do the actual bot editing if it comes down to that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, note that Gvozdet has only been editing since July, and may not be aware that anybody would complain about a category being renamed. I believe the edits were made with the intention of improving categorization, although some people may disagree that the edits achieved that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This is more than just a category being renamed. Actually two categories are being merged Category:Differential geometry and Category:Differential topology. I favor just putting the differential geometry articles back into Category:Differential geometry and the differential topology articles back into Category:Differential topology. (This essentially amounts just to undoing Gvozdet's last 400 or so edits.) This seems to be the consensus of the thread, but perhaps a clear statement of a plan of action and then a straw poll might help to bring this consensus into better focus. Le Docteur (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a poll is premature (they don't usually help much). Like I said, I can undo the changes if that's what people want. But let's wait at least a day before that, at least giving Gvozdet a chance to comment. There's no reason to hurry, and I'd rather only do the edits one time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I agree that the issue is not very urgent. Le Docteur (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

IT SHOULD BE ONE CATEGORY. This way it is better for readers. I did not find any reason above for splitting. Also for most of the pages in this cat, one can not say if it is diff top. or diff geom. --Tosha (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

For many pages, arguably it should be in both categories. For instance, tangent bundle is obviously central to both differential geometry and differential geometry. However, for many pages (probably even most) it is clearly one or the other. For instance, curvature is distinctly geometrical rather than topological: although it is true that global information can be gleaned from curvature, the curvature itself is unambiguously a geometrical concept and does not belong in a topology category at all. Going the other way, as Rybu points out, Morse theory, Massey products, and Mazur manifolds should not be in a differential geometry category. Le Docteur (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I should add that reasons should have been given for merging the categories. The "splitting" that you refer to is just a return to the consensus status quo. At any rate, contrary to your post, good reasons for splitting have been given. Oh, here is another reason: the AMS has different subject classifications for differential geometry (53-XX) and differential topology (57RXX). If there were no reason to keep them separate, then presumably the AMS would have come to the same decision as you. Le Docteur (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Non-integer representation

I have nominated Non-integer representation for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-integer representation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — sligocki (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User:DustFormsWords thinks that this might require expert mathematician assistance, please feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-integer representation. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)