Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Main pageDiscussionContentAssessmentParticipantsResources

Please check Modular arithmetic

Please check the recent edits to Modular arithmetic - I don't think that they are constructive. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are talking of the 3 last edits by a new editor (username in red), I reverted them before reading this post. D.Lazard (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

New publication of possible interest to project members

Eppstein, D.; Lewis, J. B.; Woodroofe, Russ; XOR'easter (2025), "Princ-wiki-a mathematica: Wikipedia editing and mathematics" (PDF), Notices of the AMS, 72 (1): 65–73. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Nice work. Hopefully giving a balanced impression of what lies in store for editors attracts more potential contributions than it scares away. :-P –jacobolus (t) 20:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I've just finished reading it from beggining to end. Btw, I've noticed even articles about Fields Medalist can be stubby (e.g. Shigefumi Mori). Yesterday I wondered if it was not because so few professional mathematicians participate in Wikipedia work. Duseverse (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

As an alternative guess, I suggest that biographies don't interest everyone. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately (because one can learn a lot of math beggining by reading biographies, IMO). Duseverse (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

To our list of Wikipedia articles that don't exist, about subjects that don't exist, which includes Omphalology, we can add Non-Riemannian hypersquare. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

For at least 15 years, maybe more, I've thought an article like this ought to appear in a publication of that sort, and pondered attempting to write one, and never really felt up to it, and this one is better than what I would have done. I may write a response that complements it by adding some specific tips about editing Wikipedia articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein, @XOR'easter. That is unexpected. Good job! Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to the pointer in The Signpost, I just finished reading "Wikipedia Editing and Mathematics" (doi:10.1090/noti3096). I don't speak math very well but I do know communication and readability and it's so good. Also, funny. One line even earned my highest honor, inclusion on User:Jengod/Notable quotables, right below a Beyoncé lyric. Seriously tho, thanks to all the contributors. I know it will have good effects on our math content and it was a joy to read. Cheers, jengod (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we merge Naive set theory into Set theory?

I'm justifying this merge on the grounds of WP:content fork since about two thirds of the Naive set theory artilce is just describing the basic properties of sets, which is already covered in Set (mathematics) and Set theory. Join the dicussion at: Talk:Naive set theory#Merge with Set theory? Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be a good idea.

The problem is that there are two different uses of the phrase naive set theory, plus an (incorrect) narrative that conflates them.

One meaning is just set theory without formalization, kind of the way Cantor thought of it. The other meaning is set theory that includes unrestricted comprehension and leads to Russell's paradox and the other antinomies.

The incorrect, but widely believed, narrative, is that these are essentially the same thing, and that formalization was the cure for the antinomies.

It's very difficult to address all of these disparate threads in a coherent article at the title naive set theory, and doing it instead in a section of the main set theory article might indeed make sense. --Trovatore (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Fuzzy set

There was a surprising amount of references / further reading to predatory journals in this article, which I've purged. I think what remains is mostly OK, but I'm no expert on fuzzy sets, so a second look wouldn't hurt.

I also notice that there's remaining reference to Florentin Smarandache about "Neutrosophic fuzzy sets" there too. I haven't touched it, but it may be unwarranted/undue/craycray stuff.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

This and fractional calculus are areas popular with the people who publish in predatory journals. Probably the references reflect that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Fuzzy review for fuzzy sets.... XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Can I invent fuzzy fractional calculus? It's an operator that returns something of the order of the regular integral, to the nth power of the integral $\int _{\text{fuzzy}}^{n}{x}dx={O{\bigl (}x^{2}{\bigr )}}^{n}$. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Google Scholar already reports some 329 papers on fuzzy fractional calculus, in journals of such unimpeachable quality as Chaos, Solitons, & Fractals, the Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, MDPI Mathematics, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Damn, and here I thought I could outcrank the cranks. I suppose I could always claim this came to me through divine revelation and 'publish' via vixra. But more seriously, wrt neutrosophic fuzzy sets, is that undue/fringe, or was Smarandache on something valid? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would nuke it. JBL (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if Wikipedia would be improved if there were a bot that automatically removes recently added predatory sources and replaces the citations with . Probably would get into a lot of edit wars. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Bot are bad for this, because there will always be 'So and so published this widely reported weirdo idea in Journal of Nonsense, a predatory journal.' But also predatory is a rather ill-defined term. There's a spectrum of shitiness, and where exactly the line is drawn is subjective. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You can always check WP:CITEWATCH and WP:UPSD for help finding garbage publications though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Fuzzy logic is not logic. It is bogus. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Platonism

This discussion over at WikiProject Physics may also be of relevance to the community here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Alfred North Whitehead

Alfred North Whitehead has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

With nobody stepping up to improve the article or push back against the concerns raised on the reassessment page (and I am not volunteering to do either of those things myself) this appears headed for delisting. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Question...

Silly question, and while this maybe isn't directly project related, our PEMDAS article doesn't seem to answer it. I stumbled upon this problem on an random forum, and there are two clans for answers

$2^{3^{2^{1^{0}}}}=8^{2^{1^{0}}}=64^{1^{0}}=64^{0}=1$ (inner exponent priority A)

and

$2^{3^{2^{1^{0}}}}=2^{3^{2^{1}}}=2^{3^{2}}=2^{9}=512$ (outer exponent priority B)

I'm pretty sure the correct answer is A otherwise the multiplication of exponent rules wouldn't work, but I haven't ever seen any textbook/class/etc. address order of exponents specifically. Does anyone have such a resource/reference? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Check out Order_of_operations#Serial_exponentiation. B is the usual. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The reason B is usual is that A can be expressed more directly as $2^{3\cdot 2\cdot 1\cdot 0}$. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see... Interesting. I would have assumed the other way for the usual. I also see it's arbitrary/varies with implementation. Not sure why I overlooked that section. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Articles with special character titles

Just noting a rather mundane observation that μ operator appears to be one of the only articles with a (Greek) special character in the name, rather than its anglicization. Only other exception I could find is Ξ function. Tule-hog (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic

Hello! Is there anyone willing to help me improve the article An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic? Thank you! P.S. I did not find a WikiProject on Logic, so Math is the closest relative! :) MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I was going to point you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy as the other close relative, but you appear to have already found it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Any professional logicians here? MathKeduor7 (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

For those interested in improving the article: Take a look at the topic "An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic. How to find book reviews?" at David Eppstein's user talk page: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Eppstein&oldid=1267247169

Following suggestions of David Eppstein, the article is now much better. Everyone is welcome to participate in the editing. MathKeduor7 (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I gave up improving the article. I am currently not in a position to do so. MathKeduor7 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The work you've done looks good! Tule-hog (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I could give a go at it. My field of expertise isn't in non-classical logic, but I have created multiple articles in other areas of mathematics and computer science—would that be alright? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks guys!!! Yes, sure: Wikipedia:Be bold! MathKeduor7 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The article was greatly improved by GregariousMadness!!! Thank you so much. ^^ MathKeduor7 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course! No problem at all, it looks like a fun read! I'm going to be reading it over the new few months for sure. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic. MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Diameter proposed merge

Our diameter articles used to be a mess in which all diameter-related topics were relegated to a subsection of the article on diameter of a circle. I just took some effort over the past few weeks to split some of them out into separate articles. Now User:fgnievinski wants to undo that and merge some of my newly-split articles back together. Please join the discussion at Talk:Diameter of a set. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Transformation rules

Is the intent for the series of articles listed in the template above to focus on classical logic, or is it acceptable to expand them to non-classical cases? Tule-hog (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)