Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2010/Sep

"Current activity" page & Jitse's bot

The page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Current_activity has not been updated for several days. I contacted Jitse Niesen about it, and I haven't heard anything. Does no one except me ever notice when that page doesn't work? Or are there people who notice and assume someone else will do something? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I monitor the page on and off and I think there was a time or two that I notified Jitse before you got to it. It does seem to stop and then fix itself occasionally so it's a bit hard to draw the line between looks broken and is broken. You have a point in that the people who consider themselves serious contributors to this project should be checking the page for news on deletion and GA discussion, new articles that should be checked, and generally to make sure no one is trashing up the place. Not that I always follow my own advice.--RDBury (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I usually check it every day, though I generally do so by clicking on it when it shows up in my watchlist. Is there a way to tell the difference between the page not working and there simply being no new activity? RobHar (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I also check it when it shows up in my watchlist, which works well when the bot is working but makes it hard to spot the times when it isn't. As for how to detect a lack of activity: no activity even for a single day is very rare, and for more than two days I think it's unheard of. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that it has updated again. Thanks, Jitse and whoever else helped fix this glitch. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Quaternionic matrix needs expert help

There is currently a discussion for deletion of the article on quaternionic matrix. The general feeling is that there are sources covering the subject in depth enough, but the article as it stands has several shortcomings. Unfortunately I'm no mathematician, so I doubt to be able to improve the article as I would like to. Can someone have a look? Thanks!--Cyclopia^talk 19:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The description labeled "The general feeling" does not accurately represent the discussion up to now. Please, vote at the AfD page and state your reasons. Arcfrk (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ehm, I already !voted at the AfD -well before coming here, actually. And to my knowledge it accurately represented the discussion -if you disagree, fine. --Cyclopia^talk 07:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Matrix multiplication

Matrix multiplication is one of 500 most viewed mathematics articles. Has no lead, consists of loosely related sections of uneven quality, contains potential violations of WP:OR and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK (although I am convinced that a large proportion of visitors to the page wants it to be a manual or a textbook on matrix multiplication). May need to be split into several articles. I've performed some clean-up and summarized my concerns at the talk page. Please, help with the overhaul process. Arcfrk (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Quadratically integrable function

The article titled Plancherel theorem refered to quadratically integrable functions without linking to that concept. So I added the link. I was surprised to find that it was a red link. So I redirected it for now to L2 space, which itself redirects to Lp space. Should it point somewhere else? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How about redirecting "quadratically integrable function" and "L2 space" to Hilbert space? JRSpriggs (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be a proper article on square-integrable functions. Actually, at one time there was a rather pathetic section of the article integrable function dealing with these. Maybe it's worth spinning that out. Also square-integrable function now redirects to integral, which is just wrong. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

For now I've redirected square-integrable function to Lp space. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

....and now I've made quadratically integrable function into a (still a bit stubby) article. And I've pointed a number of redirects to that page, and there were lots of articles that already linked to some of those redirects, so it's a very-far-from-orphaned article!

Happy editing. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel as though the term "square-integrable function" (with or without the hyphen) is more common than "quadratically integrable function". Does anyone else have this sense as well? Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard the term "quadratically integrable function" before, only "square integrable function". Ozob (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Same here. RobHar (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I heard "quadratically integrable" before I heard "square-integrable". Michael Hardy (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

With appropriate deference to you Michael, is there any objection to changing it from "quadratically integrable" to "square-integrable"? A comparison of google searches shows that the latter is more than 20 times more common: [1], [2]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it, and fixed the double redirects. I also found a couple of additional pages that redirected to integral that should redirect to square-integrable function, and changed those. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Dirac delta function GA

The Dirac delta function GA seems to be indefinitely on hold. I and another editor have both been editing the article somewhat heavily (and our visions for parts of the article don't seem to entirely coincide). I think a third pair of friendly eyes may be helpful there both in editing and in discussing the content. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Things appear to be rapidly getting ugly. I've just been accused of committing WP:OR by saying that a function which is zero everywhere but a single point must have integral zero. Also, I've been told that I am the only one ever to question the mathematical reliability of Dirac. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it at all possible to combine in a single article two different cultures, of mathematics and of physics? (The same problem with tensor.) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly the same problem. Tensors are the same objects, whichever language you use to talk about them. That is not so clear for the delta function: in fact, the term is overloaded, depending on whether you mean a measure, a distribution, a hyperfunction ... The discussion seems designed to make Sato's point about "algebraic analysis" (tensor is to geometry as delta function is to - what?) Charles Matthews (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, do many well-regarded physicists actually feel that Dirac's account is mathematically satisfactory? My sense is that for most physicists, much of Dirac's formalism is just heuristic anyway, and that it is knowingly used as an operational calculus that simply yields correct results. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well-regarded physicists usually do not care at all about being mathematically satisfactory. Talagrand quoted an important physics paper containing something like this (cited from my memory, very roughly): "It is not 100 percent clear what exactly is meant by a minimum of a function of a negative number of variables, but..." If something simply yields correct results, a physicist is more than happy. This is why I wrote "different cultures".Boris Tsirelson (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that the article is being heavily edited at the moment, perhaps the GA nomination should be left on hold until it stabilizes somewhat.--RDBury (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured Picture Candidate: N-sphere

See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/N-sphere. It appears this may be withdrawn soon but but just in case you're interested in the discussion.--RDBury (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion appears to have led otherwise well-meaning editors to add totally confused information to the article, largely because of a lack of understanding of the content. (The proposed caption at the Featured picture discussion gives an indication of the lack of clue we are dealing with.) At the moment, I think the article could use more eyes from knowledgeable mathematics editors. Just on a cursory examination, I have corrected a few errors and removed some hopelessly muddled information there, but more cleaning is probably needed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

History of measurement

Not exactly math, but if anyone is interested in the subject, it's pretty dire. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Modular arithmetic

Eyes needed on the "Functional representation" section at modular arithmetic. User:Toolnut is confusing mathematical functions with programming functions, and is attempting to replace a straightforward mathematical section with a poorly written description of the modulo function in programming/computer science. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

List of logic systems needs expert help

The new article List of logic systems could benefit from the help of one of our logicians, I think. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. What's that supposed to be? Hans Adler 14:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

They are deductive systems for (fragments of) propositional logic written in prefix form. For example CpNNp refers to the rule of inference $P\to \lnot \lnot P$. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that $P\to \lnot \lnot P$ is much clearer, more readable, and more standard notation than CpNNp. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The CpNNp notation is also well-established, although my sense is that it has fallen out of favor in the past few decades. It is originally due to Jan Łukasiewicz. I agree that the other notation is probably preferable. —Mark Dominus (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Our article on Polish notation bears out my sense: "The 'conventional' notation did not become so until the 1970s and 80s." —Mark Dominus (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The conventional infix notation is easier to read than the Polish notation. However, infix notation sometimes requires the use of parenthesis to avoid ambiguity while Polish notation does not. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but is that any reason not to use the conventional infix notation? The CpNNp notation probably made sense in the typewriter era, but I don't think it helps Wikipedia's readers much. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd support changing to the usual notation. And adding some explanation in the lede. I haven't had a chance to get to it, but it should be pretty routine. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A notation change would make the individual sections more readable, but it's still unclear to me what the article is supposed to be about. It currently asserts [l]ogic systems are a series of wffs able to be used to extract a field of logic, which means pretty much nothing to me. No doubt some sensible article could be written on fragments of propositional logic, under some title, but probably not this title, and it's not clear that it would be what the author had in mind. --Trovatore (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought the subject was supposed to be a list of deductive systems for propositional logic. The confusion is that the lede is meaningless, it uses Polish notation, and the title is not clear that it is about propositional logic. But once you see that all the sections are just different deductive systems, the pattern isn't hard to see. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's at all possible, I'd like to see some kind of tabular comparison of the different sets of axioms. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In order to fix the most obvious issues, I've converted the axioms to infix notation, cut some of the most thoroughly misguided descriptions of the systems, and corrected various errors (there's bound to be more, as this sort of axiom listing is error-prone, and converting from infix to prefix notation and back again even more so, which is not helped by the fact that the original uploader in many cases did not quite know what they were doing).—Emil J. 16:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Plimpton 322

I seem to have gotten into a little argument with an anonymous editor about whether some new additions to Plimpton 322 are helpful. My position is that, to the extent they make sense at all, they are original research by synthesis, but the anon argues that as they consist only of routine calculations they don't need a source. Third opinions welcome; for details see the history of the article and my talk. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea of the connection to quadratic equations is already explained in the section right above it. The additional text is rather poorly written and does not seem to add anything significant to the article. The comment about square grids and folding, given that they wrote on clay tablets seems a bit out of place? I agree with you that this material should be removed. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of "Multifactor design of experiments software"

Multifactor design of experiments software is on AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multifactor design of experiments software. The deficiency of the article in its present form seems to be that it doesn't say much about the software. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Leftover hash lemma

Leftover hash lemma is currently a mess........ No proper intro or initial context-setting material. And other problems. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll

Could someone please take a look at this article? I've been asked to do something about it as it has been heavily edited by an editor (using an account and an IP) who has worked in this field but whose edits are based on their own work, blogs, etc. I know mathematics is an area within Wikipedia which is a bit different from, say, history, and everything here may be appropriate, even if it creates an article which to at least two of us (see my talk page) is almost unreadable if you aren't a mathematician. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I must say, I'm actually pleasantly surprised given how bad our articles on Egyptian mathematics usually are. User:AnnekeBart deserves a barnstar for at least partially cleaning up the mess left by User:Milogardner. Only just a few months ago, our Egyptian mathematics article was this bad! Of course, the WP:COI and potential WP:OR at Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll is still a major concern. Perhaps someone should approach AnnekeBart and/or Milogardner about this directly as well. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was the one who asked Doug for help. Like I mentioned to Doug: Several edits were made to Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll that to me seem like blatant original research and self promotion. I have tried to raise the problem of original research with the author but he persists.

The "references" given for the statements are websites and blogs written by Milogardner. If he can point to other literature that support the claims the that would be different. I looked and cannot find others who make the same claim. There are no peer reviews of his work that I can find. And the claims seem rather over the top to me.

An additional problem is that the edits are so badly written that the article becomes rather worse for wear (in my opinion). It didn't quite get to the epic proportions of the Egyptian mathematics article, but the text really is rather confusing. I do not feel like getting in an editing battle over something like this. Besides the fact that it's not appropriate, I feel that's a total waste of my time. I would prefer to keep working on updating the other pages about mathematical texts. Or add to other areas that interest me. --AnnekeBart (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The truly bad article is Rhind Mathematical Papyrus 2/n table--Salix (talk): 23:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The minor cleanups I was able to do aren't nearly enough; I had to hit it hard with {{Multiple issues}}. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

For a long time (from 2006 to the end of 2008) I struggled with the same editor on the Egyptian fraction article, which used to have all the same problems. He can be very persistent. Since then I've been hoping that if I leave him alone on unimportant articles like Rhind Mathematical Papyrus 2/n table then his work on those articles will occupy his energy to the point where he leaves the more important articles alone. But maybe that's the wrong attitude to take. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I just removed a large piece of text from Lahun Mathematical Papyri. I moved it to the talk page for discussion. Has anyone considered blocking him to get the message across? I don't know if this is the right place to ask the question but there are repeated violations of WP:OR, WP:COI and there are the consistent deliberate edits that do not conform in any way shape or form to Wikipedia standards. Either no references, ones of dubious quality, or the latest: a list of references listed in the middle of the article. Part of the text duplicated material already there, so there was no attempt even to create a coherent article. It's not as though these issues have not been brought to his attention either. And if people have been trying to work with someone since 2006, one would expect a bit more cooperation and more appropriate editing by now (I would think). --AnnekeBart (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Judging by his talk page User talk:Milogardner there has been rather little interaction with Milogardner. It seems we have mainly left him and the articles alone. A more active position is definitely good. At this time i would say reversion, removal of text and dialog is the best way forward. If he then starts going against consensus and engages in edit wars then block ban or other sanctions might be in order. --Salix (talk): 05:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

He has been "discussing" things with me on my talk page User talk:AnnekeBart. Less than productive and a real nuisance to me at this point. It's the usual arguments I suspect when dealing with WP:OR and WP:COI: the experts do not know what they are talking about, literature is incomplete/incorrect, references to "discussions" which are really one sides diatribes, etc. And a general rather condescending attitude. He actually sent an rather condescending email to my workplace (the math and CS department at SLU) saying my work on adding images to these pages was nice but content was lacking. Then an offer to explain to me what was really going on. Our secretaries were a bit baffled by why he would send it to them to forward to me. I thought this was rather inappropriate. --AnnekeBart (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's at it again at Ancient Egyptian units of measurement. The changes he made are based on original research, and in this case really silly math mistakes. The changes made a complete mess of the tables, but the biggest problem is that he's just completely wrong. Sorry to keep bothering people, but I cannot do a whole lot by myself. I do not have banning powers (nor do I want them). But that does mean one of you who has Admin powers needs to keep an eye on him. --AnnekeBart (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ideally we should start a user conduct RfC to solicit broader input. I'm willing to help (but don't have much experience with such things). Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Any help on how to move forward is appreciated. The rambling posts on my talkpage are getting annoying. How can we proceed? I noticed it takes a minimum of 2 editors to file a RfC. --AnnekeBart (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but it needs to show that attempts have been made to work with him, and people need to be willing to contribute to the RfC. Hm, I could invite him to post here first? I have found him extremely frustrating myself. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

His comments and attitude have become rather belligerent and insulting at this point. I have notified him on his talkpage that we are having this discussion. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have apologized to Anneka Bart for repeating a major error by mis-reading Clagett, et al. The error was repeated for one week, making my belligerence unbelievable. My misplaced intent was to exactly report scholarly information, placing my views aside. I failed. Promising to do better, RMP 43 and the Kahun Papyrus used a common formula that Robins-Shute "The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus", 1987 reported (on page 46) a RMP 42 volume formula "([8/9)]^2[d^2](h) cubit-cubit = (3/2)[d^2](h)khar = (32/27)[d^2](h)= (2/3) x ([4/3)^2][d^2](h)khar". Quotations are always better than paraphrasing. Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing science topics

Vector quadruple product is currently on AfD but, as a article title in MathWorld, it was formerly in Wikipedia:Missing science topics. It seems a bit inconsistent to request that an article be created by putting on a list of missing articles only to discover that the subject has questionable notability once it has been created. So I thought it might be a good time to look at the list and see if some changes are needed.--RDBury (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Topics should never have been added to the list only because they're named in MathWorld. Any topic that was added for that reason, ideally, should be removed, but I don't know if there's anyone who doesn't have anything better to do than figure out which ones those are. It would certainly be a service, though. --Trovatore (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There are about 14,000 entries on the list, so it seems there is no practical way of going through them item by item. MathWorld is not the only source of questionable subjects; some of the Springer ones are like 'Mathematical problems of aerodynamics' (listed under A) which to me sounds more like the title of a book and too vague to be an encyclopedia article subject. If there are no serious objections I was thinking about either archiving off the list or changing the instructions so that it no longer requests articles to be created, instead asking that the material be added but to an existing article if possible and if reliable sources can be found. I've used the list in the past to create new articles, and I still use it for creating redirects, but if I'm the only one then it might be better to make it an archive. Checking the page view stats it seems that this is the case but if people still think the list is still useful then a change of instructions would be better. As I understand it, the list was created several years ago when priorities were different than they are now, so I think don't leaving it 'as is' is a good idea.--RDBury (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, at the very least we should not be implying that every term on the list should have an article. I'm sure MathWorld is not the only source of the problem. Still, it seems to keep popping up from time to time. As you can probably tell I really really really don't like MathWorld. --Trovatore (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the link from the project page and removed the math section from the Missing Science Topics page. This list is still available at Wikipedia:Missing science topics/Maths.--RDBury (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Clackson scroll formula

What do "we" think of Clackson scroll formula, an article whose deletion has been proposed and is being discussed. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability clearly depends on the formula being used in its field of application, not the mathematical content. Hardly our call, therefore. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Masanori Ohya

Somebody take a look at this article? He seems to be a serious mathematician, but the bio's claim that he solved P=NP problem suggests that something was lost in translation from the author's original language, perhaps. Ray^Talk 02:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Try the Introduction [3] to a book of his selected papers for some clearer statements. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

He seems to be a notable mathematician, but he has not solved the P versus NP problem. More broadly, unreferenced BLPs like this require some action, but I'm not sure what. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

From your grateful public :)

A reader has commented on the Help Desk to thank all those who contributed to the mathematics articles on Wikipedia. Well done you guys! Gonzonoir (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting..... Apparently posted from a machine at Berkeley. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Gay Ernst

Hoax? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently. No relevant google hits or google scholar hits for him or for the word "irreal". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a blatant hoax. There has never been a "Reichshochschule für Mathematik", and even if there had been one it would probably not have been in Ulm and would at least have been renamed before someone born in 1931 would have had a chance to attend it. It's quite funny overall, but it's probably an attack page: Ernst is a German first name, and I don't have to explain the modern meaning of gay. An "affirmation authority formula" sounds like exactly the kind of thing an incompetent teacher would discover. I will tag it for speedy deletion. Hans Adler 08:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify a technical point for whoever handles the speedy and may come here for an explanation: The article was obviously written by a German speaker (it uses the German Wikipedia's convention of naming the sources in the edit summary), and for any German speaker it's blatantly obvious as a hoax. I think that's enough for the spirit of G3. If you have scruples about this , delete it under G10. Hans Adler 08:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Tangent

I'm trying to remove some redundant (imo) material from tangent. What I'd like to do ultimately is add more advanced material and generally bring the article up to C quality. I've started a Talk:Tangent#Derivative motivation sections thread to discuss the changes and would appreciate additional opinions on the issue.--RDBury (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one should add a section on how to construct tangents to a circle with compass and straightedge constructions. Given a point on a circle, construct the tangent at that point. Given a circle and a point outside the circle, construct the two tangents which pass through that point. Given a circle and a straight line, construct the two tangents to that circle which are perpendicular (or parallel) to that line. Given two disjoint circles, construct their four common tangents. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of these can be done by straightedge alone. Thus, given a point P outside a circle, one can first construct its polar line p using staightedge alone. The intersection points of p and the circle are the points of tangency of the tangents through P. In fact, "circle" can be replaced by "conic" in the above. Tkuvho (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

To Tkuvho: I find that hard to believe. One needs the compass even to construct a perpendicular line to a given line at a point on the given line. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I find that flattering :) Using a pair of secants XX' and YY' from P (where X,X', Y,Y' are on the conic), the polar line p is the line through points R and Q where R = XY' intersect X'Y; and Q = XY intersect X'Y'. Believe it or not, p meets the conic in the points of tangency. Projective geometry is amazing! Note that we have a circle already present in the picture, so that the construction is not exactly circle-free. Tkuvho (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that material would go in Tangent lines to circles (if it's not there already). One issue I'm running into is the Tangent article should really be called "Everything you wanted to know about tangents that doesn't fit into another article." I've added a bunch of material on tangent lines to plane curves, but I'm thinking that should eventually be split into separate article. This article is seen by about a thousand people a day so it's a bit disconcerting to see it such bad shape, though I'm afraid that I haven't helped matters much.--RDBury (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

To Tkuvho: Yes, that is amazing. I was thinking of Thales' theorem. I did not realize that there was another way.

To RDBury: Yes, Tangent lines to circles is a better article for this idea. And it appears to already have it. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Mathematics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The relativity task force (which is inactive) received a similar message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity#Relativity articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Gottfried Leibniz‎

An IP has been modifying Gottfried Leibniz‎ in a dazzling direction. I signaled it at the talkpage but he seems to be moving faster than other editors. Tkuvho (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Multivariate kernel density estimation

The article on multivariate kernel density estimation is very new but very good. Could someone who is more familiar than me with the rating of mathematics articles take a look at it and give it a rating? I have a feeling it may be a B-class article, but I could be wrong. Yaris678 (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The article already has the WPStatistics banner and I'm pretty sure it should be their call. The boundary between WPMath and WPStats is fuzzy to say the least, but if this doesn't fall squarely into WPStats territory then I don't know what does.--RDBury (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I know it has the stats banner - I put it there. I didn't realise this was an issue, but I guess I'll just ask someone in the stats WikiProject to have a look. Yaris678 (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Quadruple Product

There's this term in the physics/engineering literature, quadruple product. There are two of them, a scalar and a vector quadruple product. The definitions are trivial combinations of other vector operations, and yet the engineers have still named them. We had an older page on the vector quadruple product that had the wrong definition and got deleted, so someone made a new page, which was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadruple product.

Right now the bulk of the votes is to delete, and I can't understand why. I gave a couple of examples of usage, including the calculus class at MIT, and a robotics class at Oxford. I don't know how that's not a slam-dunk proof of notability. This isn't one of those pages where somebody was noodling on a piece of paper and decided to stick it on Wikipedia. This is real terminology. (I don't disagree it's "stupid" terminology, but I never would have coined the term triple product either, and that's a real term too.) -- Walt Pohl (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not saying I agree or disagree, but I'm thinking the debate should be kept on the AfD page. There's nothing wrong with calling attention to the AfD here in order to get a broader range of opinion, but most of your comments belong there instead of here.--RDBury (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ancient Egyptian units of measurement

I would like some third party input if possible on Talk:Ancient Egyptian units of measurement. I think the main argument comes down to WP:OR. The results that the other editor wants to add contradict what is in the regular literature. The discussion is at the bottom of the page. Other issues are with the type of editing. Check out [4] and look at the editing comments if you will. And see the table for weights etc on this edit [5]. There may be useful comments in there somewhere, but separating the wheat from the chaff is rather difficult here. --AnnekeBart (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is simple. In RMP 41 Clagett mentioned 4800 hekat was computed from 960 khar obtained from 640 CC + 320 CC. Anneka wishes not to divide 4800 hekat by 960 khar taht revealed Ahmes' 5 hekat per khar. Anneka wishes Clagett's raw data reported 20 hekat per khar (off by a factor of 4). Proof: In RMP 42 Clagett mentioned 5925 hekat computed from (290 1/18 1/27 1/54 1/81) CC + (395 1/36 + 1/54 + 1/81) CC = (1185 1/2 1/54 1/81) khar. Again, dividing 5925 hekat by 1185 1/2 1/53 1/81, revealed 5 hekat per khar. The same is true for RMP 43. I'll spare everyone the grief of dividing total hekats by the khar value repsorted in the problem. Let me assure everyone, 5 hekat per khar again was found ... hence a double proof is provided by Clagetts' raw data. Case closed! Milogardner (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The original research presented here flies in the face of some 100 years of literature. It supposes all the authors so far are wrong and that the editor here is the only one who has noticed this discrepancy. I'm not buying it. --AnnekeBart (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the issue here that Milo is using primary sources (Claggett's translation), as opposed to secondary literature? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No the problem (IMO) is that it's original research which contradicts the standard literature.

Clagett, Marshall Ancient Egyptian Science, A Source Book. Volume Three: Ancient Egyptian Mathematics (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society) American Philosophical Society. 1999 ISBN 978-0871692320

Katz, Victor J. (editor),Imhausen, Annette et.al. The Mathematics of Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, India, and Islam: A Sourcebook, Princeton University Press. 2007 ISBN 978-0691114859

Rossi, Corinna Architecture and Mathematics in Ancient Egypt Cambridge University Press. 2007 ISBN 978-0521690539

Just to name a few. --AnnekeBart (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Milo's "In RMP 41 Clagett mentioned..." seems quite inadequate as a citation, but presumably it does refer to something that is a bone of contention here. Perhaps asking for an actual citation might help to resolve this? Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As I have mentioned several times now, it's original research. That violates WP:OR. This is the same nonsense we have to go over with milo time after time after time. I'm sick of this. Honestly I have decided to withdraw as an editor. This is a huge waste of my time. Having these kind of issues go on for so long is ridiculous. The fact that all of you have turned a blind eye to this kind of behavior is not to the credit of the integrity of wikipedia. I do not want to be a part of this any longer. --AnnekeBart (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this has been very difficult and frustrating for you. I would like to help you, but I know nothing about Egyptian mathematics—I can't tell what is OR and what is not. I suspect that this is also true for many of the other contributors here.

To me it seems that the right next step is WP:RFCU WP:RFC/U. I believe that your recent notice to him at his talk page, together with User:Opabinia regalis's 2007 posts (which regard the same behavior), together satisfy the minimum contact requirement. Surely also his posts on your talk page and on the talk pages of the articles involved show that he is well aware of the dispute.

There are administrators here who are more familiar with user conduct disputes than I am. Perhaps they will have some advice. I am sorry that I can't be of more assistance. Ozob (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think WP:RFCU is the appropriate venue, there is not really a sockpuppet case. It might be time to look at some form of formal Wikipedia:Dispute resolution perhaps WP:RFC/USER.--Salix (talk): 06:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is also WP:RFC/U and I'm sure what Ozob meant. I agree. Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't all that matters here whether the figure is in the literature or not? The long explanation certainly implies it is original research and therefore should not be in Wikipedia. The calculations should be submitted to some journal dealing with Egyptology before any mention is made here. I'm not saying the figure in the literature is right or wrong, just it is what is WP:Verifiable which is what is required and the calculation is WP:Original research. Dmcq (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted Milogardner on his talk page to tell him that the discussion here is continuing. As far as I can tell, there are two distinct but closely related issues:

1. Milogardner is adding formulas to Egyptian mathematics articles which he says are directly from the relevant papyri. That this is so is doubted by AnnekeBart and others.
2. Milogardner is adding text to Egyptian mathematics articles which may or may not be original research. He claims that it is not; AnnekeBart and others say that it is.

As I said before, I know nothing about Egyptian mathematics, so I am not in a position to judge here. Ozob (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

While primary sources are acceptable in some situations, I think ancient Egyptian primary sources are almost never acceptable, even in articles about the sources themselves. Perhaps, in rare cases, as illustration for an argument, in an article that is otherwise completely built on secondary sources. But that does not seem to be what we are discussing here. Hans Adler 11:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I find the edits a bit disturbing. It looks like Milogardner has got a book published by an Indian maths publisher, but when I try to find things using Goiogle scholar all I can find is lots of pages he has written himself which are cited from Wikipedia or Planetmath pages which were also mainly edited by him. There was a passing link from a talk on the MAA pages about Math fun with egyptian fractions plus a book on African mths cited his book. I just don't see why he doesn't try submitting the things the disputes are about to peer review. Dmcq (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I had similar problems and gave up. Now, probably tomorrow unless someone else does it first, I'm going to file an RFCU. This has been going on far too long, and has caused a valuable user who is very good at finding reliable sources to consider retiring. I really do not want that to happen. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What is a RFCU? Controversy related to the contents of Egyptian mathemati9cs has filled scholarly journals for over 100 years. Schools of thought have developed related to these controversies. Anneka and I belong to two different schools of thought. Anneka can best cite the school to which she subscribes. My understanding is that Anneka prefers algorithmic approaches. That approach is fine. When a controversy arises, be it related to the Lahun Mathematical Papyrus containing a formula that calculated the largest term in an arithmetic progression (a topic that I subscribe, and cite scholars like John Legon), or geometry formulas that calculated cubit^3, khar and hekat values, cited by Clagett and Peet, an algorithmic approach cited by scholars seems required. I too would be saddened if Anneka Bart decides to leave Wikipedia. Spotlights on Egyptian math controversies are healthly. Wikipedia is well placed to document the controversies, a small number of which may have been resolved over the last 10 years, depending upon your school of thought. Best Regards to all, Milogardner (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support a RFC/U. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that David Eppstein would comment. A RFCU must be a serious step. I am very appreciative of Eppstein's insistence that I read the Liber Abaci in 2006. I bought the book at read it with great pleasure. After reading Fibonacci's seven rules, summarized on pages 123-124 that converted rational numbers n/p to unit fraction series following one of three notations David and I seem to disagree on a host of issues. We have not shared much over the last four years. That action is fine with me. I learned that two of the seven rules (distinction per Sigler's 2002 translation) namely: (1) (n/p - 1/m) = (mn -mp) = 1, and (7) when (mn -mp) could not be set to one, ie. 4/13, Fibonacci selected LCM 4 and 18 per, 4/13 - 1/4 = (16 - 13)/52, with 3/52 - 1/18 = (54 - 42)/52 = 1/468, meant 4/13 = 1/4 1/18 1/468, written right to left following Arab, Greek and Egyptian conventions. Silencing a few Wikipedia words in the short term may be involved in a RFCU, but Fibonacci's and Ahmes' words will speak for themselves reported by a host of scholars in the long term, maybe posted to Wikipedia, and maybe not. Best Regards to all, Milogardner (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What is a RFCU? - WP:RFC/U is an informal non-binding process enabling users to discuss problems with specific editors who may have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. - Specifically in you case it will likely focus on repeated violations of WP:OR, WP:SELF. If the RFC/U goes well we will address these issues and take the various pages to a state where all they are based on reliable sources, don't contain unpublished material and are in keeping with the Manual of style. If the RFC/U does not go well it can lead to other forms of dispute resolution which can results in blocks and other sanctions. (WP:RFCU is a completely different process to do with people using multiple user names and does not concern you). --Salix (talk): 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There was some ethnocentric background noise at history of calculus that we took care of efficiently without any administrative processes. If it is true that the only source for these edits is a book published in India, I see overwhelming support in this space for blocking such edits. Why waste time with administrative niceties? Tkuvho (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is the sort of conspiracy theory that we need to take care of at the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics: "The intellectual careers of both Newton and Leibniz are well-documented and there is no indication of their work not being their own; however, it is not known with certainty whether the immediate predecessors of Newton and Leibniz, "including, in particular, Fermat and Roberval, learned of some of the ideas of the Islamic and Indian mathematicians through sources of which we are not now aware." It is not known with certainty whether Fermat may not have learned some of the ideas of Aztec mathematicians, either. Tkuvho (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup which would affect the Kerala article and quite a bit besides. User:Jagged 85 added quite a lot of POV material and there is a coordinated effort to try and clean this up.--Salix (talk): 22:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just created a summary at Talk:Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics#Misuse of sources showing the edits performed by Jagged 85. Opinions on how best to proceed are needed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Time for an apology to Anneka Bart concerning the scaling of a cubit-cubit to a khar unit. Dr. Bart was correct, and I have been wrong for seven days. I would be pleased to post this apology, or a related apology, any where on Wikipedia that Dr. Bart requests. Proper scribal scalings of CC, khar and hekat units appear in a Bruce Friedman email that has forwarded to Dr. Bart for her review. These scribal scaling facts do not resolve an on-going CC and khar scsling to a hekat debate that currently separates Dr. Bart and myself, and our respective schools of thought. Time will close these controversial issues. I feel very bad for offering a false scaling of a CC to a khar unit as if reported by scholars when there were none. Best Regards to all, Milogardner (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate the apology, I do feel I should point out that this proves my point. The real issue is that this is a case of posting original research into the article (now by the author's own admission), and in this case it's ongoing research apparently. I really do not care what techniques one uses or what "school" one belongs to. The results that are being posted come from someone's private work, which has not been held up to the scrutiny from even one independent, outside reviewer. It is not published in any scholarly journal or anything like that. Wikipedia is not some kind of blog or forum for exchanging the latest ideas. I have no problem with Mr Gardner doing his research, but until it is published in a peer reviewed journal and there are independent verifications of the proposed theories by scholars in this area they just do not belong on Wikipedia. --AnnekeBart (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've started it at User:Dougweller/RFCUGardnerdraft. I have been involved with Milo in the past, but it needs at least one other person who has tried and failed to solve their dispute with him can show that with diffs to certify this (and take part in writing it). Once that's done it can be filed and others, including and crucially Milo, can comment. But at the moment the first task is to fill out the initial sections. I'm hoping that anyone willing to certify it will go ahead and help edit the draft. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Doug, please go ahead and do what you must. But, at some point, you may see that I am ONLY documenting un-resolved Egyptian math controversies within a well established school of thought (scribal arithmetic, arithmetic progression, algebraic and geometry formulas) that Wikipedia acknowledges from time to time, but not all of the scribal math controversies. Interdisciplinary groups populated by more than more Egyptian math school of thought must, at point, resolve all the controversies. Subtle controversies fill the scholarly literature. Need I list them for you? As you know, being a member of Anneka Bart's group, any person or group of persons on Wikipedia can 'cherry pick' scholarly references to make a preliminary school of thought point without actually resolving the deeper controversy, or set of controversies related to it. This is the issue at hand. Anneka Bart is a well-motivated and trained modern mathematician that has been working with Annette Imhausen to report one school of thought's findings. I have no problem with the algorithmic school of thought being energized about their preliminary findings. Publish them in journals as if the deeper controversies have been resolved. But please do not destroy valid formulas on Wikipedia that have been documented by many scholars, as took place recently with respect to the Lahun Mathematical Papyrus. Until a balanced interdisciplinary team formally agrees and publishes findings, such the 2009 interdisciplinary team that began an important process (but, to my understanding did not publish findings) Wikipedia posters can not close off controversial debates. When finding of interdisciplinary teams are published PLEASE cite them as a reference on Wikipedia. Seeing no references of this type mentioned by your group, why should I not conclude that your group is pretending that the arithmetic progression formula did not exist? Ahmes' problems 40 and 64 and the Kahun Papyrus scribal shorthand notes do exist. John Legon in 1992 wrote a wonderful paper that attempted to document the same arithmetic progression formula calculated the largest term in RMP 40, 64 and the Kahun Papyrus. I propose that Legon achieved his goal despite a minor flaw in the paper (which was informally resolved around 2006). Best Regards to all, Milogardner (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record: I do not work with Dr Imhausen. I have referred to her work repeatedly because she is a world renowned expert.

If there are results in peer reviewed articles and/or books (i.e third party reviewers) concerning differing interpretations then these are included.

Blogs, websites, discussions (either via email or a forum), and self published books are not considered reliable sources here on Wikipedia. Anything coming from those types of sources should be excluded from the article.

This has nothing to do with "schools of thought" this has to do with excluding original research from Wikipedia. And writing articles that are appropriate for the scope of an online encyclopedia. This is not some blog where we chat about our own latest ideas and theories. --AnnekeBart (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In other words, your work is original research. I'm hardly a member of anyone's 'group', and I make no claim to be a mathematician. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Doug,

My work is not original. When 2/3 is n ot misread as 3/2, I faithfully follow scholarly information. For example, researching Robins-Shute's 1987 "RMP" book, the following may be of interest with respect to showing a quadruple hekat was curious to a well known scholar. On page 40, "Other conversion tables are provided in RMP 47, 80 and 81 gives one-tenth graduations of 100 quadruple hekat expressed in Horus-Eye fractions of a quadruple hekat and quadruple ro ...

A curious feature of the table is that 1/70 times 100 hekat ... reached

(1 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/32 + 1/64(hekat) + (2 + 1/7)ro"

an arithmetically correct answer.

As Wikipedia readers know, I have been using Hana Vymazalova's (64/64) hekat unity to convert Ahmes' hekat rational numbers into binary quotients and ro scaled answers (properly cited by Robins-Shute). Concerning RMP 47, the following the Akhmim Wooden Tablet (64/64) scaling of rational number is proposed to be equivalent to Ahmes' arithmetic steps per:

(6400/64)/70 = 91/64 + 30/4480 = (64 + 16 + 8 + 2 + 1)/64 + (150/70)ro =

(1 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/32 + 1/64) hekat + (2 + 1/7)ro

Yes, there is a curious aspect of the problem, mentioning 100 quadruple hekat in the introduction when 100 hekat and hekat were mentioned in the calculations. But is a curious point to Robins-Shute in RMP 47 a serious point in RMP 41, 42, and 43? The numerical calculations identified in RMP 47 suggest (to me) that a 100-quadruple hekat was likely scaled to 100-hekat, a proposed scaling found in RMP 41, 42 and 43. Robins-Shute is only the first of a long list of scholarly documents that will be researched. None of my own valuations of a 'quadruple hekat' will be offered, hence refuting Doug's straw man.

Was Ahmes' use of a 100-hekat and quadruple hekat symbols used identically elsewhere? How many 'curious' uses must be pointed out before a major controversy has been identified? More later, Milogardner (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What is required is citation. People here are not interested in your questions or calculations. The more you stick in what is not wanted and levae out what iis needed the less it seems that you have any sort of case in WIkipedia terms. Wikipedia terms is that the information has a citation. Your reasoning is counter productive in this context. The more you write without pointing to what it is based on the more diluted any argument you make becomes. Dmcq (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Citations to published works in reliable sources are the only things of relevance here. Paul August ☎ 23:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul, you are correct on one level, and incorrect on another. We are dealing with an intellectual issue that Wikipedia rules, when fairly applied, will resolve in my favor. Concerning the Lahun mathematical Papyrus Anneka Bart and her group replaced Robin-Shute's view of "RMP nos. 40 and 64 are of interest because they show that Egyptians had an understanding of arithmetic progressions. In no. 40, 100 loaves of bread are to be divided among 5 men so that the sum of the two smallest shares is one-seventh of the sum of the the greatest. It is evident from the working, although not stated, that the shares are to be in arithmetic progression. It is required to find the common difference of the shares", with a lesser statement that under reported the facts. Annette Imhausen's view was inserted in a manner that made no attempt to fill-in any obvious unstated aspects of Ahmes' problems or the Kahun Papyrus problem.

Restating my position: the vivid and valid formula aspects of the RMP issue is the same one reported in the Kahun Papyrus. John Legon's formula disappeared from Anneka Bart and Annette Imhausen's version of the Lahun Mathematical Papyrus. Where is the spirit of Wikipedia rules that discourage narrow citations of academic references that 'cherry pick' thereby distorting the academic literature? My view is that Anneka Bart consciously places one school of thought's position (her personal views of algorithms that under report scribal formulas) over equally valid schools of thought, one being my group that has reported a range of abstract formulas for over 80 years. This is the central conflict, intellectual in scope, nothing more or nothing less, once my personal discussions begin and end with scholarly citations. I promise to do better. The RMP 41, 42 and 43 cases define a second example where well established formulas have been downgraded on Wikipedia Egyptian weights and measures entries, and replaced by lesser transliterations that improperly under report scribal unit measures. Let's work together by fairly reporting all of the academic literature. Best Regards to all, Milogardner (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I assure you very few people other than Bart and yourself can, or have the patience to, follow the technical details of your field. You weaken your case by being apparently unable to prune your prose. Briefly, which sourced material is underrepresented at wiki? Tkuvho (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the material from the Lahun Mathematical Papyri has absolutely nothing to do with any "conspiracy" to remove material and "cherry pick" anything. This should be abundantly clear to Mr Gardner as the problems with that edit have been very clearly laid out on Talk:Lahun Mathematical Papyri. This explanation has been available since September 1, 2010 had Mr. Gardner bothered to look it up.

The edit was so badly written that it rendered the article incoherent and there was no way to reasonably salvage any possible interesting material. Per usual there were no inline references, no attempt at a clear and concise summary of the ideas, sentence fragments, parts that read like a personal essay, etc.

For the record: I do not care if the ultimate explanation will be algorithmic or formulaic. What I would like to see is a well written article that deals with facts coming from the literature. Information from articles in respected journals and books; what is written on blogs, websites, etc. is irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia. --AnnekeBart (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems like an interesting dichotomy (algorithmic vs formulaic), but the current version of the article says not a word about it. If both sides can be sourced, would it be reasonable to add a couple of sentences summarizing the dispute? Tkuvho (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of Anneka Bart's Lahun Mathematical Papyrus discussions include a link to modern number theory defintions. For example arithmetic progression was mentioned related RMP 40, 64 and a Lahun Mathematical Papyrus discussion. I saw no attempt by Dr.Bart to offer scribal formula(s) on the topic. Dr. Bart actually removed one formula on scribal arithmetic progressions that had resided on Wikipedia for several years. In replacement a fuzzy introduction of modern algorithmic number theory definitions were linked by Dr. Bart to scribal thinking. Modern number theory links need to be justified by Dr. Bart, or anyone else that links them to scribal data. My view is that most of Ahmes and Kahun Papyrus formulas were algebraic, and not algorithmic, a subtle issue for non-mathematicians. I'll mention Robins-Shute's proof that formulas in RMP 42 that used

V =3/2 (H)](8/9)(D)]khar became V = (2/3((H)[(4/3](D)]^2 khar

in RMP 43, with both formulas removed by Dr. Bart with a fuzzy 'grammar' justification. Let the scribal math be reported by scholars, and may Wikipedia editors clean up anyone's grammar without throwing out the baby (scribal formulas) with the bath water. Best Regards to all, Milogardner (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not here, please, Click on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Milogardner. or here Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Above, User:Dougweller noted that he was preparing a user conduct RFC on Milogardner at User:Dougweller/RFCUGardnerdraft. You have extensive experience in cleaning up after Milogardner. I think your contributions to the RFC would be very valuable, as the RFC may lead to a final solution of this problem. Ozob (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It is now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Milogardner

Cleanup effort related to WPMATH

There is an ongoing cleanup effort, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup, which affects a number of articles related to this project. I count at least 60 math related articles involved in the cleanup and several in related areas such as logic and physics.--RDBury (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Dirichlet form

Dirichlet form is currently proposed for deletion as its just too short to even qualify as a stub. There seem to be plenty of references on google to justify notability so some expansion and removal of the prod tag would seem in order. --Salix (talk): 06:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Maths nominations at WP:GAN

There are a few nominations at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Mathematics that could benefit from review, if anyone is interested. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

ICM proceedings

Apparently all the old International Congress of Mathematicians proceedings have now become available online. See this blog post for more details. This seems likely to be very helpful for sourcing articles here. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That site links in turn to ICM proceedings 1893-2006. For example in the 1912 proceedings one finds among other articles "ON POWERS OF NUMBERS WHOSE SUM IS THE SAME POWER OF SOME NUMBER" by Artemas Martin. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)