Would somebody look at Ramanujan prime? An IP has added an unsourced claim I doubt and tagged with {{fact}}. The IP keeps removing the tag and claims a reference is not needed even though I point to WP:V#Burden of evidence. I have made 3 reversions already within a day (and the IP has made 4). PrimeHunter01:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The disambig page Small set seemed lacking in many ways to me, so I was thinking of expanding it and removing the {{disambig}} template from it. I realized that this could be controversial, though, so I created a mockup of the page on my user space. I'd like to place it at Large and small sets, and on the model of Even and odd numbers I thought I'd redirect Large set and Small set to it. (Large set currently redirects to Small set.)
What do you think about the idea in general? I think there's value to giving this an article, since the different concepts are actually related in many ways -- in fact many nest directly in each other. Also, constructive feedback on the article would be appreciated.
Well, I'm generally against these projects to gather together usages of a term from varying contexts. I think you've made a good-faith effort to give "just the facts", but the idea in itself still smacks a little of original research by synthesis. --Trovatore05:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little worried about that, thus my decision to put it on my user space. But I would actually argue the idea that the contexts are really that different, since the terms often dominate each other. Uncountable sets are always larger than those subsets of the naturals with positive density, which always have divergent reciprocal sums, which if the Erdős–Turán conjecture holds also have arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions (making them Ramsey-large). They don't seems to be fundamentally different ideas, but more like different refinements of the same.
In any case I'm still looking for ways to improve the article. Any thoughts on this -- or any suggestions on where to ask for advice -- would be appreciated.
Your argument about "whether the contexts are really that different" is precisely where the original research comes in. Most of the concepts could probably be subsumed into an article called ideal (set theory) or some such (right now, there's an ideal (order theory), which is a little too general to fit comfortably). In that context there's no problem. The problem arises when you abstract a commonality from disparate usages, and associate it with a particular nomenclature in a way that the terminology is not standardly treated. --Trovatore21:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree. I think that when I first learned most of these parallels were explicitly drawn with at least one of the others. (For example, I first learned about the combinatorial largeness in a presentation in which the presenter opened with the limitations of natural density.) Should I search for references on this? The article in its current form doesn't actually have them... I sort of wrote it from memory.
If you'd like to make a mockup of Ideal (set theory) I'd be happy to work on it -- although I don't really see the connection.
Well, I don't think it's enough that the parallels were drawn case-by-case. You need to find someone who's treated "small sets" in generality.
The connection with ideals is that an ideal is a notion of smallness for sets (sets are small if they're in the ideal). Probably all the notions you want to treat, define an ideal, though I haven't checked that. --Trovatore22:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean about ideals. I've never studied them before -- but they're essentially just filters (I think you can make an isomorphism here?) which I have. Actually while this could remove whatever OR/collection issues you had, it brings up another OR problem in that since I haven't ever studied them from that perspective all I could say would be of my own design. It wouldn't actually be original, but any references I put in would be entirely post-fact.
Ideals do seem to fit pretty well, though, as the obvious ≤ relation clearly makes all concepts of smallness in my article ideals except density. Density probably is also, but since it can sometimes fail to exist it might be necessary to use upper or lower density instead.
Ooh ooh ooh! I can't pass this one up. Sets of naturals having asymptotic density zero (which, you might notice, is the same as having asymptotic upper density zero) do indeed form an ideal. It's called . It turns out that the corresponding equivalence relation is Borel bireducible with c0 (meaning, the equivalence relation on Rω induced by adding sequences that tend to zero) -- the latter result is mine personally. It's in my dissertation (you can find the link from my user page), or in the cleaned-up paper Borel cardinalities below c0, Proc. AMS 134(8) 2419-2425 -- you can download it from the AMS website; no subscription required I think. --Trovatore22:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I should tell you there's a small error on p. 34 (fixed in the published paper in J. Symb. Logic) -- e-mail me if you want details. --Trovatore07:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll email you wen I get there. I've actually been trying to start with chapter 2 since it seems more directly relevant, so p. 34 should be the last part I read. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of recent discussions about the manual of style, the guideline about page names was recently changed (since June 14) so that en dashes (–) are acceptable in article titles one more. Other changes led to the manual of style for dashes being merged to the main manual of style.
If there are pages that should be renamed to replace a hyphen with an en dash, and the move is not contentious, I'd be glad to help with the moves when admin assistance is required. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a category (Mathbot? Veblenbot? Jitse's bot?) "math articles that contain hyphens"? This might make transitioning easier.--Cronholm14420:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the current guidelines, there isn't a need for a transition: both regular and en-dash hyphens are acceptable in titles, although redirects should be provided from one form to the other. Geometry guy21:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a few cases where articles about jointly-named theorems were "forced" to use hyphens against some editors' requests, so I thought those might be worth changing back. Otherwise, I agree with the current guideline that there's no need to change them all at once. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Periodically someone comes along and tries removing the following image from Bring radical:
Now perhaps it's just me, but I find the pun/joke is not only funny but is pedagogically sound.
Someone even tried deleting it before stating it is not funny, so I imagine that those without the requisite background don't quite get it or understand the educational value. I suspect that mathematical editors will, in general, be quite amenable to this image, and this is a mathematics article. So I think it is quite appropriate that the mathematics community should weigh in on this important issue. Perhaps I am quite wrong and this image is just plain unsuitable for Wikipedia. --C S (Talk)01:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is funny, pedagogical and clever, so I hate to be boring: unless this cartoon has been published somewhere we can cite, it is probably OR, and is going to get deleted frequently. Geometry guy20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OR? it is a statement of fact with a funny pun inserted. I don't think that qualifies as synth or traditional OR.
It introduces a new theory or method of solution; nope
It introduces original ideas; if you consider puns new
It defines new terms; nope
It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; nope
It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; only purports humor...it isn't an arguement.
It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; ...it's not "building a case or a synthesis" as it employs only one fact... I don't think there is any controversy involving the usefulness of Bring radicals when solving quitics.
I'm a little uncomfortable with a cartoon image in a encyclopedia mathematics article. I can live with that; the benefits are worth the discomfort. Keep it.
Many of our articles devote a section to something like "In popular culture", so we have established precedent for admitting (relevant) frivolity. --KSmrqT23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for all the comments so far, but they should really be at the talk page for Bring radical, where I've thus far had to argue long and hard with one persistent editor. Now another editor insists that the cartoon violates "Wikipedia is not a textbook". --C S (Talk)00:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just direct the other editors to us. As for my opinion, I think the cartoon is quirky and lightens up the article, so keep it. Cedars13:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the other editor C S was referring to. I would like to say that while I do agree that there are many good points to the picture, I'm not sure it is consistent with the style of Wikipedia. I did previously argue on the basis that "Wikipedia is not a textbook," but I will admit that argument was kind of stretched and didn't make the point I was trying to make, so I will abandon that argument in favor of the following one. Let me say first, that I've looked through all the style guides that seemed even remotely related and there appears to be no solid guidelines on when an image is appropriate. So to be clear, I will admit that this picture does not violate any Wikipedia policy, however, the removal of this picture also does not violate any Wikipedia policy. Since there is no policy either way, my argument is based on precedence.
WP:PEACOCK "avoid peacock terms that merely show off the subject of the article without imparting real information."
WP:TPA "A perfect Wikipedia article...includes informative, relevant images — including maps, portraits, photographs and artworks—that add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text"
WP:NOT#TEXT "The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter."
WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"
It just seems to me that it's been shown time and time again in the past that not everything belongs in Wikipedia, and that the focus of content should be explaining and presenting facts, not humor or teaching tools. Weston.pace14:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is nice too. But unless there is a source for the pun, it is OR. Jokes and puns are original ideas, and are not suitable for Wikipedia unless they can be sourced. I'm glad this controversy arose, though, because otherwise I would have missed out on the clever joke! Geometry guy16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Weston.pace just made Chan Ho's case.
WP:TPA "A perfect Wikipedia article...includes informative, relevant images — including maps, portraits, photographs and artworks—that add to a reader's interest or understanding of the text"
Is the fact that it's an image as opposed to plain text relevant? For example, would it be OK to include a section labeled "Joke" which contained the text of the joke without the picture? I think most would agree that it would be inappropriate. I think our shared (geeky :) math humor is coloring our judgment about a type of content that (in my humble experience) would not be accepted in other parts of Wikipedia. nadav (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that some of the policies are only laxly applied to images. Take, for example, this image of a dilapitated wooden building, used in the article on the Bulgarian St Stephen Church. Why is it notable? How can we verify from reliable sources that this is indeed a photograph of the original wooden structure serving as a church at that site on the Golden Horn in Istanbul, and not, say, some structure in the Barbary Coast district of 19-th century San Francisco? --LambiamTalk09:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, all images are supposed to contain source information or else they can be deleted within seven days. I guess people have been lax with this picture because it's been marked as PD and it looks old. You should ask the uploader for better source info. nadav (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OR for images is more relaxed than for other content (see WP:OR#Original images), but it is important to understand why: first, images do not generally propose unpublished/original ideas; second, most published images are copyright, and so cannot be used - hence we need to generate an original image instead. But I agree with nadav: the fact that this is a cartoon is irrelevant (and I agree with others that cartoons are not per se unacceptable). The problem is that the joke may be original. I guess we just have to ask CyborgTosser where s/he got the idea. If it was WP:MADEUP, then it is, in my view, OR; if not, and there is no copyvio, the source should be cited. Geometry guy12:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly something about this cartoon makes a number of editors uncomfortable. Efforts to justify that discomfort by finding some policy to cite make me uncomfortable. Consider the animation of Villarceau circles that was a featured image not long ago; was it based on seeing a similar animation elsewhere, or was it an original attempt to get the concept across? I hope it was original!
I, too, am a little uncomfortable with the cartoon. Why? Is it a step down a slippery slope, implicitly granting permission for future contributions almost none of us would want? Is the art not quite professional enough? Is it a weak joke? I think probably all three are true. Yet I choose to keep it. Again, why? I think, on the whole, it adds to the article. Jokes and mnemonics are a long tradition in many technical fields. (How to remember, say, OBAFGKM, the stellar sequence?) Most mathematics jokes are bad jokes. (Sorry.) Personally, I've decided to trade off a certain amount of comfort for exploration and art. (Bed in a hotel, or wilderness campsite under the stars?) My checklist of things to remember when I'm writing professionally includes examples and humor.
I'm more worried about your first concern than anything. As for Villarceau circles, the image was most likely made up, but it's a description of a real concept. The cartoon is a description of fiction, and just as nadav pointed out, the joke itself wouldn't be acceptable as text. I'm not going to remove it because I don't have the heart, but I don't think it belongs. People may sacrifice comfort for art, but Wikipedia isn't a person and we should aim to make it infallible. -Weston.pace15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into the whole "Bring radical" business and it seems the term "Bring radical" may itself be a neologism. The literature, so far as MathSciNet reviews goes, seems to use "Bring form" or "Bring normal form" in reference to the particular form the quintic that must be solved after the relevant transformations. I didn't actually read all the articles, so I can't be certain that the analytic function is not called the Bring radical as stated in the article, but I'm suspicious. --C S (Talk)19:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been my belief for a while that a nice picture at the beginning of an article can really liven up that article, even if the picture is not absolutely necessary to convey the main idea of the article. So here's a challenge, can anybody come up with a picture which could go at the beginning of Number theory? (That one is one of the most linked articles.) Any ideas and pictures are welcome. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of them all and I think the Ulam spiral picture is the prettiest and easy to explain. Thank you for the suggestions. Feel free to change the picture or the caption, of course. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the image text should be changed. It says:
"When arranging the natural numbers in a spiral and emphasizing the prime numbers, an intriguing so far unexplained pattern is observed, called the Ulam spiral".
Ulam spiral has the milder formulation "reveals a pattern which has never been fully explained". I have seen some sources claiming similar things but I think it's bad. The pattern refers to prime-rich lines. The lines correspond to certain quadratics, and quadratics have different well-known divisibility properties for small primes (for example, n^2+n+41 never has a factor below 41). I have not seen an informed source claim that the so far observed patterns cannot be explained with known divisibility properties for quadratics. Other things are unknown, for example whether the lines remain relatively prime-rich forever, but no unexplained observed pattern corresponds to this uncertainty. By the way, I like Ulam's spiral and had considered to suggest it for prime number, but that would be too much now. PrimeHunter03:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you did not intend to make a double negative: "an intriguing and so far not fully unexplained pattern is observed". I changed [1] to "an intriguing and not fully explained pattern is observed". Several sources say similar things although I personally find "pattern" rather vague so it makes limited sense to me to discuss whether or not "the pattern" is explained. PrimeHunter17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed because I have Fixed point iteration on my watchlist. Because this user appears to be doing this systematically, I suspect this user is running the website. Hence, this appears to go against WP:EL (whereby you are not to add links to your own web site.)
I have removed the link in Fixed point iteration, but I'm not sure I want to keep my eyes open for this kind of stuff all the time. Is there a botty way of doing this? You guys on top of it?
Gregbard (talk·contribs) has been adding many existing mathematics categories to Category:Logic as subcategories. I think that he is going overboard, especially since many of these are already subcategories of other subcategories of Category:Logic. It also appears to contain too many articles. What do you think? JRSpriggs05:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few cases where it actually makes sense to have this sort of duplication. For example, Humber River (Ontario) is in both Category:Rivers of Toronto and its supercat Category:Rivers of Ontario. That's because, while it's undeniably a river of Toronto, not all the river is in Toronto (in fact quite a lot of it is not). If there were "river" categories covering the entire length of the river, each smaller than "Ontario", the river could be divided up among those, but there aren't (AFAIK), so it should go in "Rivers of Ontario" to represent those other parts of the river.
In general I think it's justifiable to duplicate categories if there's an aspect of the article, or its subject, that fits in the supercat but not in any of its subcats. I'm just talking generalities here; I don't have any such example in mind that would make Gregbard's categorizations correct. But I haven't thought about it carefully enough to be sure they're not there. --Trovatore08:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines I've linked to above give other examples where such a thing makes sense, which is why you need to examine them on a case-by-case basis. A tenor saxophone is, all of it, a saxophone is a woodwind instrument is a musical instrument, so there there is no point in adding bypasses. I've fixed most cases where Category:Logic was added to a category already in a supercat such as Category:Mathematical logic. Due to the volume of changes, I've only performed cursory examinations. Much remains in the articles. Also, the user in question has a different understanding of what a stub is. The Typed lambda calculus article is weak, given the importance of the topic, but it is not a stub, as this user would have it.[3] --LambiamTalk09:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A better first step would be to come to some agreement with Gregbard about the category situation, before making the changes. I noticed the categories begin added, because most of those pages are on my watchlist, but I didn't have the energy to do anything right away. Perhaps someone else could spend some time talking it over with him? It would be worth reading a discussion Trovatore and I had with him on Trovatore's talk page to get a sense of where he is coming from. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly open to re-evaluating some of these category additions. I don't see overpopulating this category as a big problem for now as opposed to under populating it. Some of them may go back, and I am willing to do it myself if presented with the a list. It has raised some questions on both sides. However, many of the articles affected will benefit from the "philosophical" logic perspective (a division I don't find useful but rather, pragmatically real) I think the perspective seems to be that there is mathematical logic and non-mathematical logic which is called philosophical logic. That view is a simple analysis, math-centric, and just incorrect in many cases. I am hoping that the logic people, and the philosophy people, and hopefully even the epistemology people (if such a group ever develops) will all get a chance to expand some of these. This is all within the context of the developing proposal for WikiProject Logic.
I thought the sentential calculus article was a particular example of a page which if there has to be a choice between math-logic and logic (i.e. the phil. logic in this pragmatic reality) that the more general that includes both would be more appropriate.
A category that has more than about 100 links in it becomes very difficult to navigate, read, review, and grasp. It basically makes the concept of a category rather useless to anyone who is trying to review a topic (which is how I use categories: I read all of the articles in a category that I don't already know about. My personal attention span is about 20-40 articles. Assuming I already know about 1/2 the topics in the cat, that makes about 80 the max that I can handle. Anything bigger than that is daunting. Put it another way: simply reading the just the titles of more than 80 articles, and going through the mental classification of trying to guess article contents from the title; that alone is exhausting. I presume that other readers work the same way.). I notice that Category:Logic has maybe 400 links in it today, which makes it ripe for a major hack-a-thon. linas03:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with categorizing an article both in Category:Mathematical logic and in Category:Philosophical logic, if both categories pertain to the topic, even if these two categories together cover the field of logic. The criterion whether an article or category on topic S should be categorized in category T is essentially this: unfold the taxonomic tree of topics, subtopics, subsubtopics, ..., using T as the root. Only the first layer of direct descendants should appear in category T, so S should be categorized in category T if it is a direct descendant in the tree.
I would like to draw the attention of the honorable gentlemen away from the wooden church mentioned by
Lambiam above in the course of a passionate discussion spanning mathematics, wikipolicies, originality of humour, and many other fine subjects, and direct it to a somewhat more pressing image issue.
Namely, quite a number of pages are using the wrong image of Euclid, or as it happens, the image of wrong Euclid ! And here they are:
Apparently, by carelessly cropping the bottom of the painting which contains the latin inscription Evklidi Megaren, Mac Tutor History of Mathematics Archive had initiated the error, which then propagated to Wikicommons, and on to Wikipedia. The full image is available at aiwaz.net and leaves very few doubts that an error had been made. Fortunately, in this instance the caption at the Wikipedia article Euclid (although not the commons description) mentioned the name of the painter, so it was relatively straightforward to trace the image. Moreover, someone had already noticed the error and posted a warning on the image talk page. But what if we are not so lucky? Should we make a consistent effort to verify the accuracy of the images in mathematics articles, or, at least the most heavily linked ones? Arcfrk21:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, I've replaced the images on those pages with a reliably sourced, correct image from Wikimedia Commons. -Weston.pace21:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was recommended that I might post this here, as there seems to be many more interested persons here than at other places on Wikipedia.
There is a July 12 recommendation to delete or rename the mathematics logic stub type as part of a re-organization under a philosophical-logic stub. I have put an argument opposed to the proposal as it would make those article stubs in need of improvement less visible to many of you who visit here, people who have a better sense of how to review and edit those stubs than the general population of Wikipedia users/editors. I make no comment here about non-mathematical philosophers of logic, but feel free to form your own opinions and make them known in an appropriate manner. Hotfeba19:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of you may recall me as a former Wikipedian, and a former member of this WikiProject. At one point last year I was among the 500 most active editors. Although I originally joined WP (in the summer of 2005) intending to simply add content, I spent (wasted?) much time last year attempting to describe and ameliorate quality control problems at Wikipedia, and I finally quit in disgust when I was unable to protect my user space essays against vandalism by irate anons. These essays were "works in progress" in which I hoped to explain various QC problems and to propose policies effectively addressing them. My views were (and are) based upon considerable experience, reflection, and statistics, but they proved controversial, even inflammatory, and I am not here today to describe or debate them. Rather, I'd like to suggest a small project which might address, in a very modest way, some of my concerns, at least in one narrow area of knowledge. What's in it for active Wikipedians? This: the project I suggest would add considerable value to the Wikipedia, at least in this narrow area. And this: I believe it would encourage the healthy growth of a worthy if tiny "competitor", which project members probably would be willing to assume will ultimately further improve the quality of WP itself.
In my (now deleted) user space essays, I tried to argue, among other things, that projects such as Citizendium which attempt to compete "head-to-head" with Wikipedia are unlikely to succeed, at least initially. Rather, I proposed a kind of "grassroots" scholarly movement, founded in the universities, to wrest back control of how the canon of "mainstream knowledge" and "informed scholarly opinion" is described to the outside world from the largely nonexpert and nonscholarly (and sometimes iconoclastic, mischievous or even malicious) authors of the Wikipedia. Specifically, I suggested that the future might lie in encouraging leading scholars, university faculty, and professional organizations to create specialized publically readable but write-protected wiki-style encyclopedias offering high quality invited articles by leading experts in a very narrow area, with editorial oversight/leadership by an expert (or perhaps a committee of same). I suggested that the proper role of Wikipedia (or Citizendium) might ultimately reduce to aggregating such specialized scholarly wikis in a useful and attractive manner. I suggested that specialized encyclopedias should use the same MediaWiki engine which is employed by Wikipedia, in order to encourage such aggregation--- as well as to enable authors to readily include latexed expressions and figures. I suggested that scholarly wikis might experiment with integrating their own articles with Wikipedia articles. For example, perhaps an article held under expert care at a scholarly wiki could be systematically "dressed up" with external links to unvetted WP articles; for example, links to biographies of scholars mentioned in the original article. I envisioned a hypothetical Firefox plugin, WikiLinker, which would help scholarly authors to search their article for phrases which appear to correspond to concepts having Wikipedia articles. I noted that it would be essential to give "vetted" articles an attractive but readily visible colored background as well as a distinctive header, which would enable users to effortlessly maintain situational awareness. This term is borrowed from aerial combat and is used here to suggest that intelligent web users need to be continually aware of the reliability of what they are reading (and, I confess, to insinuate that the web constitutes a "hostile environment" full of rapidly evolving threats coming, seemingly, from every direction). I argued that "massively aggregated" websites which fail to assist their users in maintaining situational awareness are failing one of their most important functions.
At present, I believe that Scholarpedia provides a (currently highly incomplete) example of how a specialized scholarly wiki-style encyclopedia might work. This is because, while Scholarpedia's announced goals are very ambitious, the initial edition is limited to just three narrow areas, one of which is dynamical systems. Scholarpedia has some backing from the NSF and has been successful in recruiting a very impressive roster of authors. The Scholarpedia articles I browsed are comparable in quality and authority to corresponding articles in the venerable Encyclopedia of Mathematics:
At present only a few articles listed here have been written, but the roster of authors who have promised to write the announced articles is very impressive indeed!
So here is my suggestion: that WikiProject Mathematics institute a project to systematically provide external links to Scholarpedia articles on dynamical systems from the corresponding Wikipedia articles. Some might ask: who would want to read the Wikipedia article when there is a Scholarpedia article by Terry Tao? One possible answer: the unvetted Wikipedia article might be rapidly updated to mention a rumored very new development (unfortunately, by the same token, it would subject to vandalism or ignorant/misleading/incorrect modifications). But it seems that Scholarpedia intends to encourage "curators" to keep their charges up to date, and I hope this will happen. Which brings us back to my vision of the future of massive websites like the Wikipedia as engines of aggregation.
Going in the other direction, WikiProject Mathematics might consider urging grassroots scholarly encyclopedias to link to unvetted Wikipedia articles, as suggested above, unless and until they provide a scholarly article on the same topic, at which point the link can be internalized. The essential thing is to provide some visual clue which is unobtrusive but unmistakable, and to then try to persuade teachers to train their pupils to maintain situational awareness as they browse the web.
I believe that such a project might help to encourage more leading mathematicians to write articles for Scholarpedia. I believe further that this would go a long way toward increasing the "scholarly rewards" for experts who take the trouble to write expository or review articles on topics in their area of expertise. I trust we would all agree that this would be a positive development in mathematics, which might help recruit talented students and would certainly assist them in learning enough to move toward and ultimately to extend the frontiers of mathematical knowledge.
I have feared for quite some time that Wikipedia is rapidly changing the world in ways which I suspect may prove highly detrimental to the scholarly enterprise (for example by unintentionally but effectively transforming the definition of "good information" from "reliable information" to "conveniently obtained if inherently unreliable information", with potentially enormous and presumably deleterious consequences for education, journalism, the courts, public policy, and electoral processes). But it may turn out that both types of wiki-style encyclopedias can comfortably coexist, particularly if scholarly specialist wiki-style encyclopedias can be intelligently interlinked with massive compendiums such as the Wikipedia. I hope so, since this might mitigate some of the apparent cultural trends which concern me.
Sorry this grew so lengthy! To end with a laugh: from this page it seems safe to predict that Scholarpedia will unable to entirely avoid controversy :-/ ---CH19:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is verging on Soapboxing. I think you're proposing a good idea, but please summarize what it is you want, before your comment gets attacked based on your viewpoint and your idea is lost. Does Scholarpedia contain only original research? If so, then there wouldn't be too many opportunities to link to it, except maybe in a 'see also' section. Or does Scholarpedia contain peer-reviewed semi-protected copies of content already on Wikipedia and you want us to try and link to Scholarpedia to give readers a more reliable source? Weston.pace21:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive_24#Scholarpedia for pros and cons of SP. Scholarpedia contains review articles by (at least in dynamical systems) the very best people in the field. CH is suggesting that we should track it and link to it as we do for eg PlanetMath or MathWorld -- except that Scholarpedia is a professional-quality resource, written by the most distinguished contributors. Jheald21:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could WP:WPM have a policy regarding Scholarpedia so that newer editors are aware of it's existence? I think it'd be a great resource, but this page will eventually be archived and it will be lost again. Weston.pace21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The soapbox comment was unhelpful. Scholarpedia is clearly a very valuable resource and I think we should get into the habit of linking to it. It aims to be a secondary rather than primary source: it may contain original research by synthesis, but such secondary material is perfect for a tertiary source like Wikipedia to cite. As a start, I suggest creating a template for citing {{Scholarpedia}}, analogous to {{PlanetMath}} and {{MathWorld}}. Geometry guy21:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it is a a peer-reviewed source, I see no reason we cannot cite Scholarpedia articles along with journal articles and books as reliable sources for our articles. Particular revisions can be cited as
{{scholarpedia|title=Dynamical Systems|urlname=Dynamical_Systems|oldid=9087|date=21 February 2007}}
Properly speaking, if only one or a few people can edit it, then it is not a wiki, even if the underlying software used by the editors is wikimedia. Readers of things like "Mathematical Reviews" or "American Mathematical Monthly" will have previously seen calls for more review articles. Using web technologies, instead of paper, for such publication efforts is a good idea; however, do not confuse "using web technology" with "being a wiki". linas13:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can edit, but edits are moderated. A moderated forum is still a forum, a moderated wiki is still a wiki. pom10:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More soapboxing: CH's choice of example articles are curious. Compare our dynamical system and Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy to those at Scholarpedia, cited above. After a quick skim, its not obvious that the Scholarpedia articles are actually "better". If one also includes the related articles here at WP, then our entries are certainly more complete and comprehensive. I would encourage everyone here to continue thinking about possible mechanisms whereby a domain expert could review a given article, make needed corrections, and then prominently stamp a "seal of approval" on a given version of an article. I believe that this kind of "peer review process" could be relatively straight-forward to implement, and would address almost all of CH's concerns about accuracy and reliability. I also believe that if this were done, the result would be a product much superior to the efforts of Scholarpedia, as the true wiki process can create and manage content at a much, much faster rate than the traditional scholarly review article process can. linas14:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the technical means to make permanent links are already in place. The main difficulty I see is recruiting experts to review the articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Tenure review boards don't consider WP participation in their review. On the other hand, to get the ball rolling, we do have a few professional mathematicians lurking here, who could be pressured to do a review. But we don't have a procedure. In the eyes of CH and others (clearly, in they eyes of those founding and funding Scholarpedia), WP is not authoritative because we don't have a way of certifying the reviewers. How would we know a reviewer is competent to perform the review? Shall we allow Danko to participate? Will I feel snubbed, if I'm not invited/allowed to participate? We have plenty of highly capable, but informal and ad-hoc volunteer reviewers; we don't have a process that is perceived as "water-tight" by outsiders. linas01:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Design Review is Complete!; Font Set Beta Release Targeted for 23 July
True, I cannot recall a single previous date that has been met, but this is still a happy announcement. We're expecting over eight thousand mathematical characters and liberal availability. These will be high quality fonts, good enough to be used by major publishers (many of whom are part of the project). --KSmrqT06:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive my ignorance. What impact will this have WP:WPM? Will it make TeX more versatile? Or is this of more importance to the math community as a whole? --Cronholm14406:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically this will be a complete set of Unicode math fonts released to the public. It will enable browsers to implement MathML (or allow users to see it, however you look at it). That will, one day, allow us to stop using images for most of our inline math. At least this is the plan. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate on Carl's remark, mathematics typesetting builds on two distinct technologies: fonts and formatting. The ASCII character set includes a few items such as ">", but even a simple "≥" is not there. What is safe to use, and how do we decide? One approach is to try to display the characters shown here in a common font like Arial, and not use any of the ones with missing glyphs. That's better than ASCII, but not by much. Or, we could ask users to install Code2000, which has considerably broader coverage. The first goal is to able to write, say, a ⪡ b ("''a'' ⪡ ''b''") inline without being forced to depend on an image for users to see
The second goal is to go beyond special characters to cope with the special formatting, again without use of images. We have had a web standard supporting this for many years now; it is called MathML. Some browsers, like Mozilla Firefox, can display MathML already; others can try the MathPlayer plugin. And blahtex can convert TeX markup to MathML; here is a place to try it. The formatting obstacle for Wikipedia is poor MediaWiki standards compliance; MathML lives in an environment of strict XML, and the developers have not seen fit to clean up what the wiki software produces. (More frustrating still, blahtex already provides more complete TeX coverage and produces better images than texvc.)
Not long ago Wikipedia did not support SVG; now it's preferred. We hope that the STIX fonts will handle the special characters part of mathematics typesetting — which is good in itself — and also increase pressure to support MathML. Wouldn't you love to be able to use TeX markup instead of wiki markup always, with uniform appearance, and no PNGs? --KSmrqT06:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely now that I have learned TeX. Do we have any participants who could poke the Mediawiki people into making this happen? --Cronholm14406:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I work with internet courses in mathematics, where we use wikis for course material. We use a system called jsMath, [5]. It is really nice, but a little slow, and requires javascript.
Paxinum20:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've had fun discussing the cartoon at Bring radical. Meanwhile: A post on the reference desk prompted me to study the text of the article more closely, and it seems we've been overlooking more serious issues. Try reading "Bring-Jerrard normal form"; it purports to be an explanation of the reduction, but it's not very successful. Nor is the rest of the article much better. A reader who does not already understand this material is unlikely to benefit much.
I'm not going to be able to clean it up myself; I'm requesting the services of a domain expert or two. Thanks. --KSmrqT11:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The biographical article about Marc Thomas, a US mathematics professor, had been listed for review by WikiProject Notability. (Some notability concerns have been raised on the talk page.) But what it really needs, in my opinion, is attention by a mathematics expert. It's well possible that the person is in fact non-notable, but I think a functional analyst can judge this better than I can, Could you have a look at the article? Thanks! --B. Wolterding12:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has also spilled over onto the talk page. The core of the discussion is whether or not "introduction" articles should be allowed. People opposed to this FA candidate think "in principle" there should be no "introduction to..." articles and everything should be explained at general relativity. Some of the comments supporting this position run along the lines of "general relativity shouldn't be that hard to explain" and "the problem is that Wikipedia allows impenetrable and contextless pages on mathematical and technical minutiae". Some countering comments generally explain that the mathematics may be intimidating, require too much background, etc., and so a simplified (less mathematical) article serves a useful purpose.
It seems to me this is the kind of thing we've often discussed here, so I think it useful and beneficial for this FA discussion if math editors go and make some comments. --C S (Talk)19:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mention this matter here rather than at the BLP noticeboard, as I expect people there will find all this rather confusing. But the math folk here are quite familiar with the whole Manifold Destiny thing, presumably.
Take a look at the current incarnation of Talk:Xi-Ping Zhu. It is nothing but a fistfight between several editors, including User: Danko Georgiev MD, User: Jiejunkong, and User: Mathsci. In addition, Danko Georgiev (who people might recognize from his soapboxing style on several talk pages) has thrown about some serious allegations, calling the article subject Zhu "a criminal" and so forth.
Based on my view that nothing on this talk page has actually been of any use in helping improve the article, rather, it has only been a verbal battlefield between these editors, I have blanked the talk page and replaced with some templates and a brief explanation [6]. Unfortunately, it has been reverted by Jiejunkong, who thinks that MathSci's (alleged) experience as a professional mathematician, somehow justifies keeping this horrible mess of a talk page.
I think it's a big shame that anybody stumbling on this article and reading about Zhu (including possibly the subject), will see this horrific back-and-forth flaming on the talk page. This is not constructive discussion.
Perhaps some steps should be taken to discourage/block/warn/ban Danko. I had to deal with the disruption he caused at the Afshar experiment, and found he added nothing positive. In private communication, he indicated that he recently purchased a book on introductory complex analysis, which he was reading, and demonstrated difficulty in understanding how to add, multiply, and take the modulus of complex numbers. At this point, I realized he was a crank. It seems wrong to me that someone so untrained in mathematics should be allowed to cause such tremendous disruption. linas13:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he is so mathematically unwashed, you'd expect his publications referenced at Unruh's interferometer to be total garbage, but at first glance I don't see the expected giveaways of crankhood (which is different from crankiness). It's not my field, so perhaps they are full of bloopers, but then he does a good job in masking them. --LambiamTalk19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, it's consoling to know that at least the horrific back-and-forth flaming is confined to the talk page! On the other hand, the controversy surrounding Cao-Zhu paper has bitterly divided mathematical community (as evidenced by cancellation of the special lectures at the New Orleans Joint Meetings). This is something that cannot be decided on wikipedia, since the issue remains contentious in the wider world. I do want to point out that both User: Danko Georgiev MD and User: Jiejunkong state that they are not professional mathematicians. There is no reason to mock one (or both) of them based on this fact. Arcfrk20:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has an immense section on the Manifold Destiny thing, which is undoubtedly a violation of BLP policy due to undue weight. There are also some POV problems partially due to lack of understanding. Apparently I'm the only one that has ever considered what Zhu himself might think of his WP bio; others are more caught up in expressing their points. But in any case, I stopped watching the other related articles long ago, and this is no different. It's too difficult keeping BLPs from getting wrecked, so there's no point for editors like me to waste any more time on this. --C S (Talk)22:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point of wasting your time is to create accurate and neutral articles. I added the section on the manifold destiny and I agree that it could create undue weight and that I could have misinterpreted it. I added the section in an attempt to bring resolution to a debate that was without question unhelpful. I invite anyone to please come and comment, this article is suffering from a lack of input. I have created a section at the end of Talk:Xi-Ping Zhu for comments regarding the BLP concerns as well as added an RFC to the BLP noticeboard. I invite editors here to take 20 minutes to look over the article and related material and provide input into how this issue should be handled. Weston.pace14:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a prolonged edit war at Integral between Loom91 and KSmrq. I, quite frankly, can't take it anymore. We need fresh opinions and ideas on the state of the article. Third parties, hopefully, will help bring everyone back down to earth. Thanks--Cronholm14412:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: it's an edit war between Loom91 and everyone else. Ksmrq took it upon himself to fend off his bungled edits, but he is by far not the only one on the opposite side. Even after being told by a number of editors that his edits do not contribute positively to the article, including point by point comments on the issues he raised at the talk page, Loom91 insists on doing it his way (including scrapping large chunks of material), takes an offended posture, and uses rather uncivil language in case of disagreement. KingBee has already quit working on the article citing "unpleasantries". Arcfrk15:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have made Arcfrk's qualification but I didn't want to sound biased right off the bat. I am biased but I have decided to go the way of King Bee and leave the article alone.--Cronholm14416:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Loom91 is a troll or just insufferably pigheaded, this and similar problems will not end until some sysop bans him for disruptive editing. JRSpriggs01:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is not at all likely at the moment. The first step in dispute resolution would be an RFC, but I think even that would be premature right now. Editors are given considerable leeway, which overall is a good thing given that everyone could be accused of stubborn editing at some point or another. If there are concerns about Integral, the right thing to do is discuss them on the talk page of that article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On Talk:Integral one could try to form a consensus on specific points. If that means taking a straw poll, it's worth it. A quick glance at the Talk page does not show that editors have formed clear group positions on the leading items in controversy. (If they have, I missed it). The closest thing I could find is the article RfC at Talk:Integral#Request for comment, opened on 6 July (ten days ago). It does not appear that anyone has attempted to summarize, or 'close', this RfC. There cannot be any talk of blocking someone for editing against consensus if there is no consensus you can point to on the Talk page. Another option is to appoint one or more editors to create a compromise draft for discussion. EdJohnston02:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstract: One would need to spend quite a bit of time to understand what has happened at Integral, and the time is at a premium, while it appears to many editors that any sort of rational discourse, while time consuming, has failed to curtail the disruptive behavior.
The RfC that EdJohnston mentioned just above had resulted in a 3RR violation by Loom91 (July 6), which was noticed, although it was not reported at the time. I tried to deflect the problem by writing a new lead, see the section "New lead" on the talk page immediately following the RfC. Loom91 himself stated that "purpose of initiating this RfC has suceeded" (op cit), therefore, it became unnecessary to "close" anything. HOWEVER, short time afterwards, he resumed trying to reinsert his own wording (ie basically reverting again). In the meantime, Loom91 used rather incivil language to personally attack Ksmrq (after having failed to make a compelling argument based on content) and, ironically, initiated a WP:WQA case against him accusing Kmsrq of incivility (you can read there his ramblings of personal nature, which he insisted on putting into the talk page of the article). I believe in constructive editing, but if you really want a conclusion for the RfC, it demonstrated that Loom91 disregards anyone else's argumentation, and keeps pushing for his prefered phrasings verbatim, occasionally misleadingly quoting one or another Wikipolicy, or claiming that the changes were "per talk", or pretending to correct an "error" that he attributed to another editor. It may be argued that this sort of behavior indeed constitutes "trolling".
There are only a few places in the discussion page where anyone has praised anything that Loom91 has proposed. There are, on the other hand, quite a few expressions of disapproval, having to do with his judgement, the mathematical meaningfulness of the added content, and his perceived disrespect to the work of other editors. This, to me, is a clear indication that his edits are viewed as disruptive (anyone is invited to form his/her own opinion by reading the discussion and diffs). Surely we do not need to "form a consensus" on the quality of his edits and formally state it in the talk page. That would be extremely unconstructive and poor taste. On the other hand, if we were to take the "straw poll" comment literally, can a straw poll then be taken to ban a user from editing? While admittedly an extreme measure, that would strike at the root of the problem and surely it would calm the things down! Arcfrk04:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A user-conduct RfC is an option, but it can be stressful and long-running. (You can spend a lot of time digging up diffs of bad behavior). It would be easier to run a succession of article RfCs on specific issues in this one article. Ironically Loom91 has blamed some of his opponents for refusing to comment at Talk:Integral. However the people who revert Loom91 don't seem terribly unified among themselves, and the Talk discussions tend to ramble widely, with people making suggestions that get no reaction from others (with some local exceptions where the cooperation has been excellent, though in areas that don't involve Loom91). If people were willing to stay focused for one week, on a small set of issues, and agree on common positions, things could be narrowed down quickly, I predict. As a start, all editors could be invited to take a position on which of the two versions is better at Talk:Integral#Recent changes to content. EdJohnston05:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, Ed, you miss the forest for the trees. Those of us who have been part of the ongoing collaboration to substantially improve integral have different knowledge and opinions about many things, but with mutual respect we try to learn and explain and work out a common vision. And, yes, much remains to be decided and created. The problem is, that where we may disagree about whether a color is bluish-green or greenish-blue (to use a metaphor), Loom91 wants to call it red. And the adamant wrong-headedness reappears in one issue after another. Editors find it tedious and disheartening to deal with him again and again, especially since conversation with him tends to be unpleasant and unproductive.
Happily, although such disruptions are common throughout Wikipedia, they are rare in mathematics articles. We are lucky that most of the public takes little interest in mathematics! However, that also means we have not "built up our immune system".
So, how to proceed? I prescribe lots of healthy activity. Come to integral in droves, and be a role model. Perhaps Loom91 is seeking attention in a bad way; but if ten or fifteen editors oppose it's easier on the editors and harder for him to persist. The article will improve, we'll feel better, and if he does persist it will be easier to make a case to ban him from the article. --KSmrqT08:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the edit war I would say the integral article has improved considerably in the last month or so, and is now looking like a good quality article ready for promotion to a higher status. Often it does take some conflict to galvanize improvements. Congrats to all involved.
It might help to add some {{resolved}} templates as was done at Talk:Calculus and maybe archiving some older threads. This would help in assessing the current state of the article.
I do not agree with the accusations leveled against me. If true, they describe the prototype troll, which I don't think I'm (the community seems to agree in general). Editors are invited to form their own judgments. EdJohnston basically makes my point, that allegations of violating consensus are not true because none exists. My attempts at starting discussion did not suceed. Subsequently I tried making the proposed changes hoping that that absence of discussion implied absence of opposition. Immediately KSmrq leapt to revert me. As KieferSkunk (who has helped out a lot in this dispute) mentioned, this is not in accordance with the policies and conventions of consensus editing. I invite more editors to come to the article. More discussion will undoubtably make for a better article. Thanks to everyone. Loom9121:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have to treat them as "accusations". Whether you realize it or not, your behavior is perceived as brusque and counterproductive. It is up to you to either try to modify it in order to constructively participate in editing articles on Wikipedia or to keep insisting on being right. One useful technique in this situation is to refrain from making any changes, let us say, for a week, and then make an objective judgement on whether an article has improved more or less without your participation. This also helps to gauge more accurately the direction in which an article is developing, and to work in sync with other editors rather than at cross purposes, which is very important for collaborative editing. We do not work according to deadlines here, the goal is to ultimately produce a high quality product, and anything that brings us closer to that goal is appreciated. Arcfrk22:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my perceptions, I was editing according to conventions of consensus editing (discuss at talk page, edit with sources in absence of discussion) that have worked for me at countless other editorial disputes which were all resolved satisfactorily. I also point out that I filed the RfC when the situation escalated. Contrary to your accusation, I never used incivil language or resorted to personal attacks like KSmrq did, including on this thread (who was warned by KieferSkunk to be civil). Neither do I disregard others argumentations (unless they are directed to my character rather than the merit of my edits). In this case, KSmrq had repeatedly remarked that he did not want to participate in discussions with me and insisted that asking or sources to be cited was foolishness on my part. These are hardly examples of strong arguments I had disregarded. The other editors took little part in the dispute untill later, when I filed the RfC. Recently, when an editor replied to a point I had raised, Arcfrk said that it was unnecessary for him to reply. Perhaps the relative isolation of the mathematics community (pointed out by KSmrq above) and the large percentage of academics comprising it have caused it to get a little out of touch with how things are usually done in the rest of Wikipedia? In any case, this is not a very large conflict by the wiki-wide standard. The actual reversion war did not last long. The notion of getting me banned from editing the article is frankly rather ridiculous. Loom9112:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating here. Do you agree with the placement of the 'Resolved' and 'Work in progress' templates that were added by User:Cronholm144 in these edits? He was trying to identify the issues where a consensus has not yet been reached. EdJohnston22:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather tired of this whole unintended falre-up. I had left such things long behind, and it is not pleasant to have this deja vu. Nowdays, I always try to edit well (and I usually succeed). While I storngly believe in standing by my edits, for reasons unfathomable to me this particular conflict spiralled out of control (though I contest claims that the blame lies entirely with me). I'll make my main points now and sit back.
The General Properties section should be general. That is, it should not refer to measure theory because it is possible to define integrals without using measures. It also should not be restricted to R/C. But this seems to have been acieved mostly with the new section linearity in a generalised context (which differs significantly from my version only in assuming the range of the integral and the range of the integrable functions to be the same).
The numerical quadrature section is far too long for an overview article. It illustrates ideas with detailed examples and discusses practical problems and their solutions, points of specialised interest. This section should be shortened.
Well, you should have told us what's wrong here in the first place, to explain your actions. Anyway, I see multiple problems with all three articles and the way how the merge was performed by a well-meaning but obviously underqualified person. So I guess I support your move. I will think a bit what can be done here.
For starters, IMO the title Cycle (mathematics) must be made into a "subdisambig" page made of Cycle#Mathematics, since the qualifier is way too general.
Tangentially: in my olden days of Russian mathematics, a methodological distinction was drawn between permutations and substitutions (in the same way as graphs are not the same as (0,1)-matrices, although there is a 1-1 correspondence).
I agree with the unmerge and agree that Cycle (mathematics) should be a disambig. As for maths terminology, I am not surprised at all that three different things are given the same name, but I think that in the postscript, Míkka has been confused by the notation - it is definitely meant to be an acyclic permutation. JPD (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way the term cycle, in the sense of cycle of a function, is used by mathematicians, it is not restricted to bijections, unlike what is suggested by Cycle (mathematics). Let f : S → S be any function. Then a cycle of f, with period p, is an infinite sequence a0, a1, ..., such that ai+1 = f(ai) for i = 0, 1, ..., ak = a0 for some k > 0, where p is the least such value of k. See, for example, the use of the term in the Collatz conjecture article. If f is viewed as the state transition function of an automaton, this is the same as an infinite loop in programmers' parlance. --Lambiam14:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JPD wrote: "am not surprised at all that three different things are given the same name". Actually I am surprized. Maths used to be distinguished from all other domains by being least ambiguous and vague. Yes, some different things are called the same word, but usually they are in different branches of maths, and the same word usually indicates the analogy. In this case we talking about a single very narrow domain of permutation theory/theory of permutations/permutation group theory (which even does not a wikipedia article). So I smell that the naming mess is actually created by non-mathematitians. Therefore I suggest that whoever undertakes the job of cleaning the act here, please use definitions from reputable books, which are specifically devoted to permutations as a basis, not from random websites and arbitrary by-math articles. And of course, if some (mis)-usage is widespread, then we have to report it as well, but duly and clearly noting in which domain this alternative terminology is used. `'Míkka16:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Usually I don't waste my time in talk pages and put my words into deeds right away, but here I am slowing down. I used to work with permutations about 30 years ago (and even had a couple articles published), but since then I radically changed my interests, so I cannot call myself an expert here, and therefore I do not want to start rewriting myself (especially not having books in perms handy), but I will take part in this job. `'Míkka17:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recently the article on the Unicode font Code2000 was deleted, with no informed comment. That deletion is being reviewed, and members of this project who wish to do so may comment here. --KSmrqT07:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone think that the mathematics reference desk (or WP:WPM) should have a "recommended" reading list for mathematics topics. We already have similar things at the bottom of articles but perhaps something more centralized and general could be helpful. Thoughts?--Cronholm14420:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds extremely useful. Of course, this would lead to the usual problems of "recommended" being subjective and therefore the question of whether it is really appropriate. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was thinking that we (WP:WPM) could put together a list through collaboration (we could userfy it to avoid POV problems) and provide a little summary of what the book addresses and the recommended prerequisites etc... and do it for each major field of mathematics. That way people looking for recommendations in the future can get a feel for the printed options out there.--Cronholm14400:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This may be useful. I personally rather look at the "references" section of an article page, though. If we do such a central list, we should put this information to the relevant articles, too. Jakob.scholbach05:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a good place to file a complaint ive had for a long time on the various mathematical articles on wikipedia: namely that they are close to giberish for anyone that doesnt have an advanced understanding of mathematics.
Its something I have found incredibly frustrating, I completed year 12, went on to tertiary education and a degree in programming and I am now employed as a programmer where I frequently use advanced math, my point being that I think its fairly safe to say that I have a greater understanding of math than the average layman, and yet i find almost every mathematical article on wikipedia to be compltely unintelligable. If i find this hard, how do people without a mathematical background feel?
Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclapedia and as such is intended to teach. all articles should be worded in such a way that people who are not experts in that specific field can still come to a basic understanding, or at least as much of one as is reasonably possible, I mean I dont expect wikipedia to be able to teach someone who has no understanding of science something like nuclear physics or quantum mechanics, but i expect at least a basic understanding, expecially with relatively simple concepts like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation
I mean I know what this is, I think almost anyone who has been to school knows the basics of this math and how to work out what 2 to the power of 2 is, but this aritcle rapidly degenrates into advanced math and incredibly technical terminology after the first few paragraphs.
One of the problems being that the math contains symbols that the avarage person has never seen, i mean what is that symbol that looks like a large capital angular E???? why is this used in so many mathematical articles without ever providing an explination. since its not even obviously named, I cant even look it up on wiki, i have no idea what to search for.
And this (from the Exponential article): "a·a"
Whats wrong with: "a x a"?
Most poeple know of multiplication by the "x" symbol. a dot is rarely used outside of professonal mathamtical fields.
My problem is generaly the terminology used. its not that the concepts are too complex for me, or even the average laymen, I know a guy who is studying higher levels of maths and I often have to get him to explain these articles and once he puts it in more "laymen-terms" i have no problem understanding it. its just the way these articles are written, too many unnessisarily technical words and symbols when there are more commonly understood options available.
/endrant
- Mloren13:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to this comment, I have spent some time reading Exponentiation. I did not find any obvious cases where the terminology in the article was more advanced than warranted by the point being made. The article starts out by defining its topic in elementary terms, and gradually builds up to more sophisticated situations. By the time one reaches complex powers of complex numbers, it should be safe to assume that only people with some mathematical prerequisites are still reading closely. Incidentally, "complex powers of complex numbers" is the first place in the article where a summation sign occurs. At this level, it is not unreasonable to expect the reader to understand such standard notation (it boggles my mind that one can get a "degree in programming" without ever having seen an indexed summation; how does one analyze, e.g., algorithmic complexity without them?). The centered-dot notation for multiplication is standard; when I went to primary school it was used exclusively. –Henning Makholm13:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles are easier to understand than MathWorld, PlanetMath, and Springer Math Encyclopeddia articles as far as I know. Sometimes, complicated terminology is necessary, you can't write everything from first principle.
Thank you for the valuable comment. I agree that there should be no summation sign in Exponentiation, and I removed it. Where did you find the "large capital angular E" ? The multiplication sign is tricky in mathematics, because it is often omitted, and sometimes it is written · and sometimes × , and sometimes the two multiplication symbols have different meanings, (· for scalar product and × for vector product). I completely agree that the wikipedia articles should not be unnecessarily technical. Bo Jacoby16:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I suppose the summation sign was what the poster referred to as a "large capital angular E". I reinserted the usual power series definition for the exponential function in the article; it is entirely proper for it to appear in that article. –Henning Makholm17:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if one simply wanted to avoid the summation sign (capital Sigma, not "angular E" -- Mloren, dude, weren't there any fraternities where you went to school?) one could use the self-explanatory "dot dot dot" notation rather than removing the power series altogether. But this does kind of raise an interesting question. Would it be useful to have some template to point readers to a centralized article explaining standard notation of this sort? While it's a bit startling that someone who had read as far as that point in the article, wouldn't know what the Σ meant, I guess is possible, and it would be nice if there were some sort of fallback mechanism to help people out in that case. --Trovatore18:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The solution in that article was to link to power series, and in general confusing notation can be explained by giving wikilinks relevant to the notation at hand. I think a centralized "notation" article is not a good idea; what is a good idea is to give explanation in context. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why the mathematical wikipedia articles are "close to giberish for anyone that doesnt have an advanced understanding of mathematics" is that some editors don't want to avoid it. Makholm's argument for reinserting "the usual power series definition for the exponential function in the article" is to the point: "it is entirely proper for it to appear in that article". That is, it is suited to prove the learnedness of the editor rather than to help the reader. The power series requires "an advanced understanding of mathematics" and does not belong in an elementary article like exponentiation but in a more advanced article like exponential function. Bo Jacoby21:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It is a mistake to think that the article should be entirely "an elementary article" simply because some of the aspects of its subject are elementary. An encyclopedic article should cover all relevant aspects of its subject, from elementary to advanced ones. The elementary ones should come first, of course, but we should not pretend that kinds of exponentiation that require more sophistication do not exist. The power series is not there to "prove the learnedness" of anyone, but because it provides relevant information for the readers who do know power series. –Henning Makholm22:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I find it highly ironic, Bo, that you, of all people, should object to a completely appropriate use of standard notation, given your history of arguing that Wikipedia articles should adopt your own idiosyncratic non-standard notations, including ones involving exponents.
The article follows a logical progression, from integers raised to integer powers, through reals, to complex numbers. Per the mathematics manual of style, it begins by addressing a broad audience, then later introduces more advanced material. I agree with Henning Makholm that it is acceptable to ease in advanced notation with advanced material, and I agree with CBM that a judicious use of links can help. I agree with Mloren that it might be helpful if the article started simpler still (beginning with numbers, not letters), and advanced a little more slowly.
We are constantly trying both to cover more topics, and to improve existing articles. More accessible articles help everyone, including those with graduate training in mathematics, and we always welcome constructive criticism. In some cases, Wikibooks may be a more helpful source, since its orientation is more tutorial. --KSmrqT22:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked over Exponentiation and its first third seems like a very decent article, self-contained and with gently enough explanations. The problems start in Section 5 (solving polynomial equations), which is obscurely worded and doesn't belong to that article anyway, continue in a cranky Section 6 (zero to the zero power): at best, one paragraph should be sufficient, then the article definitely goes overboard with "generalizations of exponentiation" a couple of sections later, and the table of powers at the end is, frankly, ridiculous. So there is definitely room to improve both the encyclopaedic character and readibility of the article. On the other hand, it seems that the original complaint was about notation, and like previous commentators, I do not perceive a big problem there. Arcfrk22:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the "solving polynomial equations" had no compelling relevance in this article, and that an explicit table of powers is useless; I have removed both. However, what do you think is "cranky" about the "zero to the zero power" section? The choices being argued for are, as far as I can tell, completely mainstream. They are, however, also sufficiently non-obvious that that it is reasonable to expect a reference work to describe the rationale behind them. –Henning Makholm23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deeper rationale for the 00 section is found on the talk page. It involves politics as much as mathematics. But, lest we focus too much on one article, the complaint alleges problems with a variety of mathematics articles. Why anyone would think mathematics difficult, that escapes me; but we keep hearing it so it must be true! ;-)
More correctly, the claim in this case is that the mathematics is simpler than the explanation. I am sympathetic. Many times I have worked hard to understand something, and upon success reflected that it needn't have been so difficult. I, too, have blamed the writer. But I wonder. It is well known that things often look more obvious in retrospect.
When asked what it was like to set about proving something, the mathematician likened proving a theorem to seeing the peak of a mountain and trying to climb to the top. One establishes a base camp and begins scaling the mountain's sheer face, encountering obstacles at every turn, often retracing one's steps and struggling every foot of the journey. Finally when the top is reached, one stands examining the peak, taking in the view of the surrounding countryside — and then noting the automobile road up the other side! — Robert J. Kleinhenz[7]
That's the way things come clear. All of the sudden. And then you realize how obvious they've been all along. — Madeleine L'Engle (The Arm of the Starfish)
This article seems to be a translation of a german article which was the deleted. Main reason "original research".([8]) Maybe someone can have look at this. --Mathemaduenn10:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear that this is a translation of the German article, which was deleted before the English one was created. But never mind that.
The article in its present form does look like it is some crank's attempt to suggest that set theory does not work. The criteria for inclusion in the list are very unclear. There is mention of Russell's paradox, but no hint at all that modern axiomatizations of set theory do not allow it (and are believed to be consistent). A few other accepted paradoxes, such as variants of Berry's paradox, are also mentioned without discussion of their modern resolutions. Others do appear to be fully original research; for example the article seems to argue that it is a paradox for the real numbers to be a noncountable set, because every real belongs to some countable subset, and another purported paradox confuses the existence of a well-ordering with the existence of a distinguished well-ordering. I don't think it is usual to consider the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem a "paradox", and the Banach-Tarski paradox appears to belong more to topology than to set theory.
I regret to say that I know of the author of this article... look here and you will see that the WM that wrote the article and the WM in the Usenet forum are one and the same--Cronholm14417:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I don't know if we have a policy about USEnet not bleeding into the 'pedia... but I think that we should, for all our sakes.--Cronholm14417:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that we need a policy specifically mentioning Usenet. About everything Usenet is is something that Wikipedia is not, except from existing on the internet and being something that anyone can write on. Paradoxes of set theory is just soapboxing and should be deleted as soapboxing, irrespective of whether it author has written similar things on Usenet. –Henning Makholm17:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, at a cursory read it doesn't look terrible to me (though I'd want to see a reference for Cantor claiming that the set of naturals has more "reality" than the set of squares, or maybe the other way around -- that sounds like nonsense). I don't see any suggestion that set theory doesn't work (maybe that's just because I know the resolutions of the paradoxes). Renamed to list of set-theoretic paradoxes and edited to mention the accepted resolutions of the paradoxes, it might possibly be a useful article.
By the way, we do have an article on Skolem's paradox. Basically it will strike you as a paradox if you insist on relativizing truth to a model. Since I don't do that, it's not a paradox for me. (By the way)2, the "mathematical truth" section of truth is horribly flawed -- I need help from someone with philosophical training to clean it up. --Trovatore17:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You are right that this is more subtle than the usual cranky diatribes. Of course I cannot be sure that this was written with cranky intentions; what gave me that impression is that the article is basically an enumeration of "problems" with infinity – and not only are the solutions to the problems not given, it is never even suggested that the problems have solutions. None of this is irrepairable, of course, but first we should have a clear idea of what the purpose of the resulting article should be. My initial idea, too, was something like List of set-theoretic paradoxes, but then I discovered that List of paradoxes already does have a nicely categorized list. It has no section specifically devoted to set theory, but I'm not convinced that that is really useful as a category of paradoxes. In any event, the article we discuss is not really it, either. For example, the supertask-based paradoxes in the "Tristram Shandy" section do not appear to have as much to do with set theory, as with infinity in general (and in particular with the naive notion that infinity is "just like finite, only biggger" and that limit arguments are automatically valid even if unsupported by rigorous definitions).
By the way: Yes, I see the Skolem's paradox article now, and agree that one might consider the result paradoxical if one does not distinguish carefully between properties that hold within the model and properties that hold in the metalanguage about the model's parts. (Is that what you mean by "relativizing truth to a model"?). –Henning Makholm18:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, it's resolved in that way for a technical meaning of "absolute", but in context it's a bit misleading to state it that way. The real resolution is that there is a true, "absolute" in the more usual English sense, notion of uncountability, but that some models get it wrong. A set may be countable simpliciter but uncountable in some transitive model of ZFC. --Trovatore00:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am more interested in whether we have an article that discusses the technical meaning of absoluteness. Discussing whether any set is "really" uncountable would be fun but let's put that off for another time... — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Trovatore is fine with it I am fine with it...I just don't like the idea of the 'pedia being used as a Usenet pulpit.--Cronholm14418:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you there. Did you get caught up in the wars over the Controversy over Cantor's theory article? That was a case where a Usenet contributor with unusual enthusiasms wrote an article about them (by the way, David's not a bad guy, and he's certainly not stupid, but there was no way the article could have been allowed to remain the way he wanted it as it was OR from start to finish). People tried to clean it up, in a haphazard way, and what came out of it was an abortion that no one liked, including David. It probably should just be deleted.
I don't know whether the same thing would happen with this WM, assuming we tried to fix the omissions from his article. --Trovatore03:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article. Although it is badly in need of cleanup, I do like the idea -- I don't think it's 'cranky' at all. I think it's important, though, to specify that the page is essentially a list of paradoxes in naive set theory. I did a quick edit of the page and added a link to Naive set theory. Frankly my edit wasn't nearly enough, even to the sections I touched; I hope that other editors working on it will be WP:BOLD in editing it (including removing my changes where needed).
Actually, I really don't like the "naive" change. The whole naive-v-axiomatic paradigm reflected in some of the most prominent WP set theory articles is seriously problematic in my view, because it leaves the impression that the solution to the antinomies was axiomatization, which is not true. In fact a large fraction of modern set theoretic research is "naive" in the sense that reference is not made to any particular axiomatization. I made a proposal some time ago at talk:Naive set theory#Outline of global solution to fix the problem, but it's a huge amount of work and I can't do it unless I get some sense that people are working with me and not opposing it. With the vexatious Jon Awbrey gone I think there's a chance. Would you review it and see what you think? --Trovatore04:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remove it from the opening, then. I will keep it in the interior section I added it to (and link it), as that section is devoted to variants of the Barry paradox which is a problem only in naive set theory as specification doesn't allow it.
I'll also have a look at the naive set theory article and talk. I'm not even sure I've read the Wikipedia article before, though, so give me a bit to get up to speed on its status.
Speaking of paradoxes, I just today ran across this article: exception paradox. it seems like OR to me. I can't find a reference to "exception paradox" or Alessandro Rafael Bertollo de Alexandre, anywhere. Anybody heard of either before? Paul August☎01:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, Alessandro Rafael Bertollo de Alexandre is a Brazilian legal authority (professor of law? lawyer? philosopher of law?). Check out this link. Most web references are in Portuguese, so I can't help a lot -- my Portuguese is even worse than my Spanish. But he is a real person. DavidCBryant13:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the article survives, it should also refer to Löb's paradox, which is a paradox of set theory in the same mode as the Russell paradox. It is important because it refutes the suggestions of some early scholars that the paradoxes could be avoided simply by forbidding negation in the comprehension axiom. -- Dominus01:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a list of nonfree (fair use) images on math articles. As part of an overall shift in WP policy, editors need to go through these images will some haste to make sure that they are appropriately tagged, or they are likely to be deleted. I am working on it but any help would be greatly appreciated. Editors already familiar with the WP image policies would find it easiest to help, but if you would like I can make a short guide about how to help. The list is at User:Gmaxwell/math fu. I am striking the name of each page as I deal with it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that this crackdown is quite serious, 8 of the 17 images at Albert Einstein have been IfDed...even the tongue image :(. The same fate will befall our math images if we don't take care of them. Carl, if any of these images, can be rendered in svg format in a way that does not violate copyright, please send them my way.--Cronholm14401:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like e.g. asymptote could use svg-ization. Two of the images there are unfree screenshots lacking fair use rationales (and likely such rationales are unable to be provided as the images could easily be replaced by free versions). —David Eppstein02:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most time consuming work will be adding fair use rationales to images of book covers and logos, and mathematical art such as Escher. The screenshots are touchy - some of them are replaceable, and some don't show any of the software and are likely free but mistagged. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite understand the bureau-speak: if an image is "irreplaceable" than it would not be deleted, even it fails to be free? The case I am particularly concerned about is Image:Calabi-Yau.jpeg, currently the lead image at Geometry. The description says it was created using Mathematica. Does this fact render the image copyrightable by Wolfram? Or is it a question of recreating the image due to a general uncertainty about the origin of images on wikipedia? Arcfrk03:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit some concern about that situation too. I make a lot of my images with Adobe Illustrator; I don't see that that gives Adobe any claim over them, nor do I see how Mathematica is different in kind from that. Though, in the Calabi-Yau case, I think it could be relevant who provided the data for the model came from, and not just who rendered it. —David Eppstein03:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put the other way: if a nonfree image could be replaced with a free image that conveys the same thing, then it should be. I tagged the Calabi-Yu manifold images as possibly replaceable because if the original author of those images wants to keep the copyright to them, someone else can use Mathematica (or other software) to make a free replacement image and upload that. The use of Mathematica is not particularly important, and does not assign the copyright to Wolfram anymore than using Photoshop makes Adobe own the copyright. The question is whether the original author releases the image under a free copyright license or not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To directly answer the question: a nonfree image with no free replacement may be kept if it has an important role such as illustrating a deceased person, being a book cover, etc. See WP:NONFREE for a confusing semi-explanation. The policy is in flux, so nobody really knows what's acceptable and what isn't. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carl, a question for clarification: you are stating that the {{Non-free software screenshot}} template on that image is bogus, but that your tagging the image as non-free is based on the description that should have been there in place of that template (that the image was grabbed from someone's web site)? Is there any chance of asking the true copyright owner to release the image under a free license? —David Eppstein03:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. The image is Image:Calabi-Yau.jpeg for those who don't know. The "screenshot" tag is often wrongly used, like this case. The copyright on the website the image was taken from [9] shows the image is not currently under a free license. If the author is willing and able to release it under a free license acceptable to Wikipedia (GFDL or certain Creative Commons licenses, or public domain), that would be great. But since it's an institutional copyright, the author may no longer have the ability to do so. It may be necessary for someone else to figure out how to graph it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is also on its creator's web site (scroll down). So it's not obvious that the iop copyright applies to it; the copyright may be Hansen's. Or he may have signed it away as part of the 1994 AMS Notices paper it is related to... In any case I agree it's not free. Hansen's web site does have a description that may be useful in recreating a free version, though. —David Eppstein05:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Title and intellectual property rights in and to any content displayed by or accessed through the Apple Software belongs to the respective content owner.
It seems clear that its IP rights are the content creators and not Apple's, so this one is actually the uploaders IP (in this case its User:BradBeattie.
Not quite for good - they can be undeleted. I doubt anyone would be willing to undelete them without a rationale given for each use first, though. JPD (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that the Escher images were deleted before we got to them. Once the net-yet-deleted images are dealt with, I'll be glad to help with undeleting images that should to be undeleted. In the meantime, it will be more useful for us to fix image copyright descriptions so that the images aren't deleted, rather than arguing they shouldn't be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explained in User talk:Salix alba. If you look in my logs, you may readily see that I am not exactly trigger happy deletionists running around seeking what else to delete. But IMHO this "fair (ab)use" went way too far. There is a serious difference between "critical discussion" of the work in question and its cursory mentioning in some (possibly closely related) topic, althouh of course there is a grey area in between. `'Míkka17:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some advice for people providing fair use rationale. Many of the fair use rationales specify "low resolution". Currently, the "standard" for low resolution is < 0.1 megapixels or less than 300 pixels in width or height. Also, these templates might come in handy for Album Covers, Logos, and general purpose -Weston.pace14:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, make sure you specify the page you're providing rationale for. Each page that uses the image must provide its own rationale.
Applogies for trigger happy admin comment, I didn't recognise your username. Looking through the criteria at the current versions of Wikipedia:Non-free content
No free equivalent. - check
Respect for commercial opportunities. - check
(a) Minimal use. - maybe all images were excessive, one would meet minimal use
(b) Resolution/fidelity. - check
Previous publication. - check
Content. - check
Media-specific policy. - check
One-article minimum. - check
Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. - for art this especially applies
Restrictions on location. - check
Image description page. - can't tell as its deleted
There is a very simple rule of thumb (actually two). #1: if an article is exclusively about the image, no one can sue you even it has nothing but image title. #2 elsewhere, if the text may be understood without seeing the image, then the image is a mere decoration, hence no significance and no fair use. BTW your item "Significance" above (whoever invented it) is brainless formulation: of course ANY image is a significant contribution, because it always shows something that is not in text. By this logic you can stuff every painter's article with his whole gallery: each picture shows something unique (that's why it costs $$$ :-) `'Míkka18:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I like Escher's work, I hate to say it but I believe Míkka has a point. The page Regular Division of the Plane was more of an art gallery than anything, and even just one image would be a violation of fair use. The copyright section of The M.C. Escher Company's website has a form that could be filled out to request image use if someone is inclined to do so. If so, make sure to read here first. Wikipedia requires the company to license their image under the GFDL to be usable. -Weston.pace20:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do allow some nonfree images, but the Escher images are a marginal case and our policies are far from clear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After an analysis of the now-closed discussion, I posted comments on the math logic stub discussion page identifying two separate and valid points of view raised in the stub rename/deletion discussion in the hopes of promoting understanding between sides. Hotfeba19:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the works of Ferrybridge, but I have read books by both Mill and Whately, and I'm positive that neither one of them is remotely connected with mathematics. Is it OK to delete their names from the list of mathematicians? Will Oleg's bot just put them back if I do that? Are we going to run into more of this kind of thing because of the philosophy/math split in categories that use the word "logic" in their names? DavidCBryant22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. On many occasions articles are miscategorized, and then the bot adds them to the list of mathematics articles or the list of mathematicians. If you delete entries from that list, but they are still in a category searched by the bot, the bot will put them back (so one needs to remove the articles from those categories, or make the categories not be searched by the bot). So, perhaps we can remove the logicians from the mathematicians categories. Comments here? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those two lists cover articles that are explicitly tagged as unreferenced. I have a list, that I update occasionally, of articles that don't appear to have any sources based on the section headers in them. User:VeblenBot/Unreferenced is sorted by category and User:VeblenBot/Unreferenced2 is sorted alphabetically. This makes it easier to go through an entire category you are familiar with to add sources. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I figured someone had generated a more comprehensive list. I should have poked around some more. Thanks to both of you! shotwell22:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A user associated with the newly formed logic wikiproject has decided to move the mathematical logic section of the requested math articles page to another page [10]. This seems like a poor choice to me, because the articles requested there are, almost exclusively, on technical math topics rather than logic topics. What do others think? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is the on going debate with some very thick people. Logic has it's own space. It doesn't help the articles or the project to have everything split up and scattered, nor hoarded by the math cabal. There is one place so that it is equally accessible to the math people and the philosophy people. This is fair and reasonable. Your opinion that "mathematical logic" is not "logic" is not reasonable. We need to work together people. There is a wonderful new space for you to work in. Be grateful for it, and stop being territorial please. I could make the case that the whole damn thing belongs under philosophy, and be done with it. Lets make this wonderful new thing flourish, not wither. Be well, Gregbard13:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"almost exclusively, on technical math topics rather than logic topics" This is untrue on the very face of it. Please let me correct you on this point. Gregbard13:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please give several examples of articles listed in the recursion theory, model theory, or set theory section of the list of requested articles that are not on technical mathematical topics. By technical I mean only that they are not covered in undergraduate texts. The only possibility I see is ordinal logic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the only possibility YOU see eh? And now you want me to give examples? It's reasonable for me to believe that you just aren't going to learn anything from any examples I give at this point. Not because there aren't good examples either. You have your view and that's all that matters. Hey listen expert: Logic is under philosophy. In universities around the world that's the way it is. We have business to conduct concerning those articles, and you are hurting our ability to conduct it. I'm going to just tell you not to worry yourself over it. You don't see it? Don't understand it? Or you are so sure of everything in your little corner, that it couldn't be any other way. That's fine. But you are keeping the rest of us from our business. You go on believing, and let the rest of us do our work too. Gregbard13:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the logic project wants to list mathematical logic articles in their request list, that's fine. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't as well, though, so I reverted the wholesale removal of topics from the math request list.
You are guaranteeing that there will be changes to the list that will be missed by those seeking them. That's a shitty thing to do in general. It's bad for the wikipedia. It's bad for the logic articles. I would never do anything so shitty as to screw up the WikiProject Mathematics. The only thing motivating it is territory, and closed-mindedness. Dumb . Dumb. Dumb. Gregbard13:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think removing the articles from the list would surely cause them to be missed by those seeking them. As for new additions... perhaps it is a pity that articles added in one won't be in the other, but I think the more logic-focused articles will tend to be added to the logic list and the more heavily mathematical (and only questionably logic-related ones) will tend to be added to the math list. Now some cross-linking ("see also Logic requested articles#Mathematical logic" or similar) would probably be useful, abd should reduce most of the negative effects.
Also, please be WP:CIVIL; some of us are thin-skinned.
Here, let me give an example. Grzegorczyk hierarchy is under Recursion theory, for lack of a better header, in the logic section. But the topic isn't really about logic in any way -- though recursion theory may be, and the Grzegorczyk hierarchy is surely about recursion, the topic itself would be better described as higher arithmetic. Why shouldn't this be under requested articles: mathematics? On the other extreme, Pragmatic fallacy seems to belong exclusively to logic and not to mathematics; though many mathematicians may have interest in it (I, for one, love philosophy), they should probably get there though the link to requested logic pages. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily there would be no reason it shouldn't be under mathematics. But the fact that there is a Requested articles/logic means there is no longer ANY reason to put it under requested articles: mathematics. You casually describe that well 'the logic articles could be there and the math articles could be over there.' So does it occur to you that there ARE NO "logic" req. articles as you describe them. Do you know WHY there are none? Because there was no place for them. It's not like people didn't have requests, they just didn't have a venue for them. That's a whole bunch of article redlinks GONE (not missing --just never were!) because the math people were too narrow minded to include the "philosophy" types in organizing the thing in the first place. I'm trying to do the right thing for everyone here. Lets refresh shall we? Be well,
Sorry, I came across as such a jerk, but I woke up today with several of my edits reverted, and efforts pissed on by some regulars here. I've been questioned TO THE HILT on everything all day today. Gregbard14:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad there's now a place to ask for logic articles, as there are many outside the scope of mathematics entirely. I hope that by finding a place you get many such articles. But on the other hand, some articles (as my example!) are entirely mathematical and not about logic at all. Now the ones that are borderline, which could be claimed by logicians as easily as mathematicians, can be in both places -- I'm not asking for the logic request list to be deleted, by any means.
There is no other way to communicate this thought without appearing arrogant, however that is the risk I will take: It is very clear that NONE of you know what is and is not "logic" as opposed to "mathematical logic", nor do any of you know what is and is not the interest of philosophers as logic is concerned. DO NOT presume to tell me or anyone else what 'really' is math and not logic. Just don't do it! Don't tell me it's math not logic. I haven't claimed anything you guys claim IS math, is NOT math. WHY O WHY O WHY are you so arrogant as to tell me what is NOT logic? From now on I'll just tell you what is or is not "logic" and that will be the proper relationship, and not the other way around.
I agree, that does sound arrogant. Why don't you enlighten us? Where do you draw the line?
For one particular application: It appears that you agree (or don't strongly disagree) on my placement of Pragmatic fallacy but disagree on Grzegorczyk hierarchy. As such, would you be so kind as to explain why you think Grzegorczyk hierarchy belongs in the list of requested logic articles?
(Edit conflict, replying to Gregbard)In Wikipedia knowledge is determined in a couple of ways. One example is consensus, which you don't have. Another example is a reference, which you don't have. You cannot claim to simply know more than everyone else and expect to get your way. I don't think anyone here has a problem with you listing the topics on the logic project, just with you removing them from the math project. We believe that it is harmful to remove the topics from the math list because people would miss out on opportunities to create articles. I understand that if a math logic list exists on the math page then someone might accidentaly list a philosophy-centered topic on the math list, CRGreathouse gave an example of that. However, someone just as likely could list a math-centered topic on the philosophy & logic lists, CRGreathouse provided example of that too. Please explain why you believe it is harmful to have topics on both lists, and when you do so, do not say "someone could list philosophy topics on the math list", because currently it seems the risk is equal both ways, would you have us remove logic from the philosophy project? Also, please do not complain when asked to give an example or a reference, because without them, you do not have knowledge as far as I am concerned, merely an opinion. -Weston.pace16:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding most of the above, there might be a technical solution, ensuring that the articles appear in two places. The template substitution mechanism could be used to transclude a separate list of mathematical logic articles into both requested articles lists. --Salix alba (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tried that as a trial, let me know if anyone has any complaints. Transclusion seems to work nicely and the edit links can be used to quickly add something to the list without looking up the separate mathematical logic article. -Weston.pace18:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone might be unaware of a technical solution, notice that transclusion can allow a file to appear to be located in two different places. For an example of transclusion, go over to WP:RFA and view the wikisource, and notice that the debates on individual candidates are brought in by using curly brackets, like {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2}} (just picking the example that's at the top of today's page). To allow this to be a compromise solution, someone would have to go to the trouble of identifying all the requested logic articles that are in common between the logic and mathematics projects, put those items in a file, and transclude it in both places. Unfortunately it's not easy to use categories when the articles in question don't yet exist, otherwise categories might be an easier method, since it's quite possible for an existing article to live in more than one category. EdJohnston16:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first two are examples of formal languages with some logical aspects, and the second two are terms used only in the first two and other articles by Gregbard (talk·contribs). What I'd like to suggest is that the languages be merged into formal language (if the sources are valid; Greg seems to say he made up the name FS), in a section on syntax and semantics, that formation rule be mapped to axiom schema, and transformation rule be mapped to rules of inference, although his examples seem to refer to the "production rules" from formal grammar, rather than more "logical" transformations.
I borrowed one of the references from the library, by Mates, but neither article's topic seems to be there. If the only place these are published is in "Godel, Escher, Bach", or if they are novel, I agree they are not notable enough to have their own articles, but would be OK (somewhat abbreviated) as examples in other articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will double check my sources and get back to you. The article is but a day old. I don't suppose we could give it a chance. I agree with the redirects. We should note the alternate terms in those articles or to the degree that they are different, clarify. I hope I don't have to struggle every time around here. Perhaps we could hold these discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic in the future. We don't want to bother all the people here who don't want to have anything to do with logic. No, I did not make up the name FS. Gregbard01:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I would agree that these articles belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic. However, the transformation rules seem to belong more to formal grammar, which is not part of the WikiProject.
I'm not missing anything that's in the article. If it's something other than a production rule, you need to specify what it is in the article. There is nothing in either article to indicate it's anything other than a production rule or rule of inference which (PQ) preserves "truth" in the "standard" interpretation. In FS, it is just a production rule. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)03:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That confirms that you have missed the point. No it does not preserve "truth." (They are stars and daggers silly!). Only the interpretation does. FS itself is uninterpreted. People "read in" the whole "truth/proof" thing. Demonstrating this is the value of FS. Gregbard03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking in my copy of Godel, Escher, Bach I can't find "FS", but I do find the "pq-System", but quoting Hofstadter: It is not important to mathematicians of logicians—in fact, it is just a simple invention of mine. Paul August☎02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So now the only question is would he have won the Pulitzer prize if he had not included the part about PQ. Hmmm. Gregbard02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
may i suggest the experts commenting here keep an eye on subsequent contributions on logic and mathematical logic by Mr. Bard. Mct mht02:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the math section of Wikipedia:Missing science topics with newer entries from MathWorld, and removed the bluelinks. The ratio of blue links to total number of articles increased from 43.3% to 48.1%. That still leaves around 13,000 math concepts which would need articles or redirects.
I was just browsing using Jitse Niesen's "Random page in mathematics" script, and I come on Relaxation technique. I can't imagine why it might be considered one. I don't know if this is a bug in the script, but I expect it just follows an automatically compiled list like list of mathematics articles, and indeed it is in that list, so the question is why this thing ends up there. There are a number of unintuitively categorized "math" articles I've found with this script, so far only hard economics or hard physics (like, materials, not theoretical physics). How inclusive are the criteria for this list? Ryan Reich15:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oleg has explained this before. People can manually add titles to the list of math articles, and the 'bot won't take those off the list. But if one is deleted and a category tag on that article is still in the list of math categories, then the 'bot will add it back in when it finds that title missing. In other words, the 'bot consults categories to find missing titles, but it doesn't make the comparison in the other direction. DavidCBryant16:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either that, or someone who had seen one war too many over a lead sentence thought we needed the advice. (It must be inviting and easily understood; it must be fastidiously correct; it must summarize the article!) ;-) --KSmrqT15:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bot indeed adds articles based on the math categories in the list of mathematics categories. An article improperly added needs to be removed from the list of mathematics articles by hand, and also removed from the mathematics category.
The bot does not remove articles from the math list which are not in a mathematics categories since originally the list was maintained by people (before categories even existed, I think), and the bot is not smart enough to decide whether a given article is mathematical or not.
I can easily modify the logic used by the bot, if needed, but in either case, it is just a bot, so human supervision will be always needed (that's what we're here for :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where this "news" appeared (I don't follow slashdot), as I was unaware of any. However, a glance through the talk page history and a little link chasing made it clear why the protection was done. Rumors and intrigue within and about Wikipedia: who would have thought that could happen?! --KSmrqT19:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any posts on this matter on SlimVirgin's talk page or on WP:AN/I were immediately removed. To me that appears as totalitarian control of information and discussion under the guise of "protecting an editor from attacks". I'll be curious to see if this section survives here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was mindful of that, so described how to find the information of interest without giving an explicit link. Besides, I have no interest in rumormongering, especially where it involves "outing" of some sort. --KSmrqT02:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why its here in the first place... SlimVirgin isn't connected with the mathematics WikiProject, is she? --Iamunknown02:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that certain parts of Wikipedia where this issue would have normally be discussed (eg WP:ANI) are zealously watched over by a small group self-appointed censors, who remove any posts dealing with a topic in an (apparently, successful) attempt to prevent any form of debate. Thankfully, this board is still Ok. The primary issue may be of little relevance to the Math project, but we should all be worried about implications of a clique of administrators abusing their powers (banning users under fake pretexts) and acting to prevent a debate under pretexts formulated, of all things, in edit summaries. There is also an allegation of tampering with edit histories, which I found especially distressing. All of these look ominous for Wikipedia. Arcfrk03:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm relatively new to this WikiProject (I don't think my name is on the main page), but I was under the impression that this talk page was coordinate efforts to update mathematics-related articles... not forum shop or discuss unrelated issues out of the purview of admins. --Iamunknown05:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why this is here, but I can guess. The active members of this WikiProject know each other, perhaps trust each other, which makes it a good place to discuss things. I admit that it has nothing to do with maths, and I was surprised that it appeared here, but if some members want to discuss it, let them. After all, it doesn't harm. That's also why I restored the discussion.
This thread is off-topic to the math project indeed, but deleting it at this stage is a worse choice than keeping it (in due time it will just get archived). By the way this is discussed on the mailing list [11], in the "slashdot" and "censorship" threads. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have grave reservations about wading into this, but I see a few issues that may benefit from comment. ●SlimVirgin is one of the more active, and hence visible, admins of the English-language Wikipedia. Even acting with pure motives and impeccable discretion, such an editor will ruffle feathers; thus we do not take remarks about her at face value. ●However, to the extent that information is relevant to the work here, we surely wish to examine it; that requires discussion. ●Wikipedia has many facets, and one of those is a gossip circle, something we are not surprised to find in any community. But spreading rumors does not serve the work. ●Wikipedia is also a target for many special interests, some who wish to destroy it, some who wish to subvert it to personal ends, and some who have financial or political goals. ●Anonymity is a controversial feature of Wikipedia, because it can be used for good or for ill. For some editors, contributing openly about certain topics could place their jobs, lives, or families at risk. For others, anonymity may hide disturbing conflicts of interest. ●Censorship is also part of Wikipedia, a fact that comes as a shock to many given the nature of the project. It, too, can be used for good or for ill. I have seen disturbed, abusive editors post personal information and death threats against those who oppose them; those posts were removed — properly, I believe. I have also seen editors attempt to remove comments and warnings on their talk page or an article talk page that angered them, or to hide the existence of opposition.
●I support the right of SlimVirgin to keep her name and personal details private. ●I support an inquiry into a possible bias or conflict of interest in her behavior, if the evidence suggests a pattern. ●And I support the open use of Wikipedia talk pages to discuss the matter, so long as posts are circumspect.
Personally, I have only a mild curiosity unless something much larger is uncovered. ●Therefore, I would prefer that, unless another forum is unavailable, we focus discussion here on issues of specific interest to the mathematics community. Just let us know where a discussion is happening, and those who are interested can follow. --KSmrqT20:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The caveat "unless another forum is unavailable" is telling here. A natural and predictable result of suppression of discussion in a more appropriate forum, are discussions in less appropriate ones. Paul August☎20:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone aware of another forum for discussion? There are a number of interesting issues raised here, although I admit they have very little impact on mathematics as a whole. The exceptions would be, of course, any mathematics involving national security (e.g. cryptography ... been there, done that, old news), and similar scary physics topics, e.g. induced gamma emission (which potentially enables very very small nuclear bombs). In retrospect, that there might be professionally trained agents whose full-time task is to diseminate propaganda should not come as a surprise, given the prominance of Wikipedia. This is quite independent of whether or not any given individual is or is not an agent. And yes, the particlars of this particular case are utterly clouded. So yes, suggestions for alternate venues eagerly awaited. linas17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now it's gone. So we have a discussion about whether it is appropriate to have a discussion, and those who feel it is inappropriate delete the discussion. Must be some Wikipedia interpretation of "consensus" I do not yet understand.
For the benefit of those who are wondering what the #@!? this is all about, here's what I've been able to piece together.
First, some background. Among Wikipedia editors, some are more visible than others. Some make large numbers of edits. Admins like Oleg and a number of other mathematics editors will be more visible because of their housekeeping work. From time to time the name of an editor appears in news outside Wikipedia. Often this comes from interacting with someone new with a little real-world weight to throw around who is unhappy with the outcome. Web sites have sprung up for the sole purpose of criticizing — mostly attacking — Wikipedia, and a popular pastime seems to be characterizing high-profile editors. Part of that effort is aimed at trying to reveal the real-life identity and background of those who edit under pseudonyms.
Now the specifics. A high-profile editor has been mentioned on a tech news/gossip site called slashdot. Some sites have accused this editor of being a spy for British Intelligence, of having this or that agenda, of editing to impose a point of view, of misusing admin powers to squelch dissent, of having a cabal of collaborating cronies. Real-life names, histories, and residences have been proposed. Juicy stuff! Irresistible for gossipers and rumormongers.
And the Wikipedia response? The software has long imposed a blacklist, prohibiting links to the critique sites. Standing policy removes unauthorized personal details of editors, and purges their history. But now editors who wish to discuss issues raised by this incident find that their remarks are deleted. Their remarks do not include prohibited links, nor unauthorized personal details; they are explicit about wishing to avoid mere gossip. Some of the remarks criticize the purging; they, too, are purged.
So now you know. In my view, it is not one of Wikipedia's finest moments. It strikes me as a misuse of censorship. What to do? That's up to your conscience and your best judgment. But I thought mystified editors deserved an opportunity to hear about what's happening, enough so they could understand this thread. --KSmrqT17:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for dealing with the logicians in the list of mathematicians
Um -- well, that addresses the philosophers who get spuriously labeled as mathematicians, but not the reverse. Of course most mathematical logicians have at least some interest in philosophical logic, but relatively few have done any important work in that field. --Trovatore04:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope someone does create that category -- but though I do love philosophy, I know next to nothing about philosophical logic. (Epistemology and ontology were my faves.) Let's hope someone steps up to the task. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Separate but equal. What a great principle to go back to. Such a category will end up empty just like the so-called "philosophical" logic redlink/requested articles. Not good for wikipedia. I think someone should actually find a logician who claims that they are "philosophical" logician before any split takes place. There really is no such thing. This is just a label that these guys are using for their own purposes. I don't think anyone else understands things this way.Gregbard02:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most logicians that I know (OK, about half) would cringe at being called mathematical anythings. If you don't like the term "philosophical logician", would you care to suggest another? Certainly most of the philosopher-logicians study far different things than mathematical logicians, so different categories make sense. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are called "logicians." If they are a logician and they are also a mathematician they should be under both categories and leave it at that. This category is obviously an entrenchment response to myself and WikiProject Logic. Being reactionary is never a good way to do anything. I don't suppose you guys will reconsider. Gregbard03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Nobody seems to have created the philosophical logicians category. All that has been done is to remove people from the list of mathematicians. I'm not sure what you are asking be reconsidered. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that at the very least you should have to find a person that calls himself or herself a "philosophical logician." I think the term is used exclusively by mathematicians. Isn't it only respectful to only call people by what they call themself or wish to be called? The segregation doesn't help. If one is a mathematician and a logician but not a mathematical logician, then that case supports my proposal to just not have a mathematical logicians category. The category you seek to create with "philosophical logician" or "non-mathematical logician" just isn't meaningful to anyone except you "mathematical logicians" and vice versa. Be wellGregbard14:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was a Journal of Philosophical Logic for a while, so it's not like we made the term up. Of course hockey players don't say they play "ice hockey" and skiiers don't call themselves "snow skiiers", but in a context where you're also discussing field hockey and water skiing, you may have to talk about ice hockey and snow skiing in order to make the distinction. --Trovatore16:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the best approach. The traditional view has been, that logic is a branch of philosophy, and logicians are philosophers, while mathematical logic is a branch of mathematics and mathematical logicians are mathematicians. It is only the unfortunate adjectival use of "mathematical" which makes this confusing. Certainly, logic and logicians long preceded mathematical logic and mathematical logicians. Logicians didn't suddenly become "philosophical logicians", with the invention of the term "mathematical logician". Paul August☎17:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"unfortunate adjectival use of "mathematical" which makes this confusing." It's not confusing to anyone taking the reasonable interpretation that
a) adjectives describe nouns (or objects)
b) the description is "mathematical"
c) the object is "logician"
Therefore "mathematical logician" is a type of logician, and "mathematical logic" is a type of logic. I'm pretty sure the explanation as 'historical anomaly' is the more unnecessarily complicated explanation.
I think mathematicians don't think of what they are doing in logic as "philosophy" because they don't really know what it is that philosophy is or what philosophers do. So they are unaware that they are doing philosophy. Any of you guys ever "analyze" in the course of your day? When a mathematician does logic he or she becomes a philosopher. However, I don't think that philosophers become mathematicians when they do logic (maybe a little, but not in a substantive way that puts them in the academic department, or influences encyclopedia organization). It goes the other way. That is why the segregation in the other direction with these categories should stop. The pontiff has spoken. Be well, Gregbard10:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say "I don't think that philosophers become mathematicians when they do logic (maybe a little, but not in a substantive way that puts them in the academic department, or influences encyclopedia organization)." This brings light to the problem that Some philosophers do logic and do not do math. This means that Some people do logic and do not do math. I think the consensus is to call people that do logic logicians. Due to the above reasoning, these people do not belong in the category mathematicians, so logicians does not belong in the category mathematicians. However, many logicians do math. We would like to create a category for these people, what do you propose we call it if not mathematical logicians? Or do you have an alternate solution? -Weston.pace15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, the explanation in terms of a historical anomaly is perhaps more complicated, but it has the advantage of not being wrong. If anyone who analyzes is a philosopher, then everyone's a philosopher, which arguably is in fact true, but is not useful for categorization. --Trovatore16:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it has an advantage eh? Sounds like a religious belief there brother Trovatore. There is an interpretation under which everyone is a philosopher, however, we only call people philosophers when A) they are paid to do the work of philosophy, or B)if other philosophers call them philosophers. If you are getting paid to be a mathematical logician, I think you had better be a philosopher (or the university is not getting its money's worth.) I'm pretty sure every person in the list of mathematical logicians (You guys will probably come up with a waste of time and effort split list from List of logicians) is either A) or B). It really is better if you guys just put away the territorialism for at least this issue. However, in any case, all of the people in any mathematical logician category should be in a category that traces back to the philosophy category despite your aversions. Gregbard23:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um yeah. I'm pretty sure you and Trovatore are going to need at least a citation for this idea that Mathematical logic isn't logic there bud. Let's get a reality check here. I think we would all clam up if you found a "philosopher" who agreed with you. Like I said, there may be a dissertation that corresponds to that view, but you wont get a PhD in philosophy with it. Gregbard00:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes barbara is a valid argument form, but your example isn't sound. You are presuming a false dilemma. In fact, you seem to be begging the question, by presuming the very thing for which you are trying to make a case. Logic is categorized under "Branches of philosophy." That ship has sailed. Furthermore that is the case at universities around the world, so that view (the one you present) would be an extreme radical minority view. Again please re-evaluate just why everyone is running away from philosophy?Gregbard01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm going to agree with Gregbard in part here. I agree that Mathematical Logic is branch of Logic is a Branch of Philosophy and also that Mathematical Logic is branch of Mathematics. What I don't agree with is Logic is a branch of Mathematics. Gregbard said that some philosophers do logic, but aren't necessarily mathematicians, I tend to agree with that. Anyways, that's what this thread is trying to fix, and no one seems to have a problem with that, so what're we arguing about? I'm going to start a new thread for the other discussion, hopefully allowing this one to stay on topic. -Weston.pace14:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone believes that logic should be a branch of mathematics, please continue to discuss that here. Otherwise, I think there are no objections to Oleg's plan. Mathematical logicians seems to be a natural branch of logicians and mathematicians. -Weston.pace14:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can recall, no one has suggested that logic is a branch of mathematics (except when "logic" is used as shorthand for "mathematical logic", which sometimes happens). What Greg has maintained is rather that mathematics is a branch of logic, but that's not under discussion right now.
The sticking point is rather whether mathematical logic is a branch of logic. It would seem natural, from the names, to suppose that it is. But the fact is that it is not. Mathematical logic is "meaning laden", a useful phrase Greg brought up in another discussion, and cannot therefore be (just) logic. --Trovatore18:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We recently had a housekeeping sweep of our images causing some to be removed, and I wanted to pass on some information to those who like to create appropriate, informative illustrations for articles.
One useful tool is gnuplot, which can produce SVG plots of great flexibility.
For graph-theory diagrams and other "circles-and-arrows" pictures, Graphviz is quick and easy, and also able to make SVGs.
Another possible source for a vast assortment of appropriate images is Paul Bourke.
Other do-it-yourself options are:
POV-Ray, a general-purpose package that can render algebraic surfaces of degree up to seven;
surf, which is specialized for algebraic curves and surfaces;
In summary, there is no shortage of possibilities for great mathematical images. For some articles, photographs may also be desirable; just be careful about copyright status. --KSmrqT22:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done simple stuff using xfig on a unix system. Last time I checked Desargues' theorem used an illustration essentially based on one I put there created with xfig (someone added some color or something); similarly at Pythagorean theorem (although that one gets edited so much it's probably evolved a lot more since my picture); and effect of sun angle on climate still has my illustration in its original form. Michael Hardy23:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Inkscape is a nice open-source editor for "vector graphics" (SVG, versus PNG "raster graphics"). It would be an awkward tool for mathematical curves and surfaces, which was my emphasis. However, it does have one notable mathematical ability: tilings. Here is some documentation; note that all 17 wallpaper groups are supported. --KSmrqT04:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started this subject to hopefully clear out what looked like two branches of thought. Here's my views on math and philosophy,
Mathematics shouldn't be a subcategory of philosophy directly. True, in some sense you are doing philosophy whenever you reason, but thats far too general a definition and there should be some abstraction between mathematics and philosophy. I could see something like Math is a branch of Natural Science is a branch of Philosophy but you'd be stepping on a lot of toes to implement that.
Mathematical logic is a branch of logic which is a branch of philosophy, that's how it currently is, and I think that's good. -Weston.pace14:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has been a professional mathematical logician, I can assure you that it (mathematical logic) is not a branch of philosophy, as "philosophy" is currently considered. I'm not certain whether non-mathematical logic (that is, logic which is not mathematical logic) is a branch of philosophy or of some other field. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)14:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“
Mathematicians are like Frenchmen: whatever you say to them they translate into their own language and forthwith it is something entirely different.
That's a good point and I'm definitely not an expert an any of these fields. What I was think when I think logic is the works of Plato and Aristotle and I generally think of them as philosophers (What I think of when I think Spock). I'm fairly certain you could consider that a branch of philosophy. As for whether mathematical logic is a branch of logic, I tend to think of it as a more symbolic and formalized form of logic. (logic kind of sums up these views well too). So I'm not saying that mathematical logic is a direct subcategory of philosophy, but that if you go up the tree far enough, you eventually hit philosophy. -Weston.pace14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main reason mathematicians don't think of math as a subset of philosophy is simple – concepts in mathematics are clear-cut and hard-edged, while most of philosophy is fuzzy and indistinct. So Aristotle was thinking like a mathematician when he described the law of the excluded middle, but he was totally non-mathematical when he discussed politics (where he said something like "some truths are more certain than other truths, and we must take that into account whenever we discuss politics").
Maybe this will help a little. Isaiah Berlin offered the best definition of philosophy I've yet run across. According to Berlin, science deals with questions about the world that we know how to answer, given the current state of human knowledge. Religion deals with questions that can never be answered, in principle. And philosophy deals with those questions that fall in neither category. In other words, philosophers deal with questions that we don't yet know how to answer, but that we may, in principle, one day be able to deal with.
If Berlin is right, the proper view of philosophy is as an evolving discipline. Questions that were once philosophical (is the earth the center of the universe?) eventually become scientific questions (no!), as we learn more about the world. Philosophy is always at a sort of frontier, representing the infinite unknown, while science is the expanding (but still finite) area of human knowledge that can be thoroughly and convincingly explained. DavidCBryant15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, these discussions are interesting but beside the point. Maybe everything is philosophy, sufficiently broadly construed, but that doesn't justify making cooking a descendant of category:philosophy. We're not trying to change the world here.
As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest the philosophy category should reflect that which is studied in university philosophy departments. And for the most part that does not include detailed results in mathematical logic. It does definitely include consideration of the meaning of those results, which in certain cases (especially in the work of Penelope Maddy) may definitely involve looking at theorems that are extremely mathematical in character. But the point is that in the math department these results would be sought for their own sake, whereas in the philosophy department they are examined for the light they shed on foundational questions. --Trovatore18:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll concede that mathematics shouldn't be under philosophy. Should mathematical logic be a subcat of logic? You say it's meaning laden and not (just) logic. Even if it's only part logic shouldn't it be a subcat of logic? -Weston.pace19:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe my question is more about the role of categories. It seems reasonable to me that if I was browsing through philosophy I could browse to logic. It also seems clear that if I was browsing through logic I could browse to mathematical logic and from there to formal languages and from there to Antimatroid. However, I wouldn't want to see Antamatroid in list of philosophy topics (or a list of logic topics for that matter). In that regards I can see multiple roles for categories. One role would be as a browsing aid, the other an organizational aid. In a browsing role, one category should be a subcat of another if the subcat is a specialized topic or subtopic of the parent. In the collection role, subcat criteria would be stricter. When we say Antimatroid should never be a subcategory of logic because it renders the bot-collected logic lists useless I think we're making a value decision with the usefulness of category-collector bots vs. the browsability of categories.-Weston.pace20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quick simpler example. What if we have Animals, someone adds Pets as a subcategory of Animals. Then someone comes along and adds pet care in the pets category. Now from a browsing point of view it makes sense to go Animals->Pets->Pet Care. But when you're looking at a list of pages that derive from the Animal category you end up listing Pet Care which seems unrelated. Which is wrong, adding Pet Care to Pets or adding Pets to Animals? -Weston.pace20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, I should check things before I post. I thought SatyrBot (talk·contribs) claimed Antimatroid because it climbed the cat graph to claim everything that derives from logic. It turns out the reason SatyrBot (talk·contribs) claimed Antimatroid is because it's in Formal Languages which is under the list of logic categories. I still think Mathematical Logic could be part of Logic. Antimatroid and it's buddies wouldn't end up in philosophy because Formal Languages isn't a philosophy category. It would end up in logic, and perhaps it should, that's up for WikiProject:Logic to decide as mentioned below. -Weston.pace21:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really mind of those articles are listed as logic, but I don't think they should be listed as philosophy. So I think it would solve this problem to have a category structure like
(with complexity theory, formal languages, set theory, etc under mathematical logic). However, Gregbard has been claiming that it doesn't make sense to have a separate philosophical logic category, and that all of logic should be classified under philosophy. If we accept that claim, then I think we also have to break the link from logic to mathematical logic, to prevent this sort of misclassification of individual articles as being philosophical when they're not. —David Eppstein21:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the summary and the diagram. That's a good description of the core of the issue. I tend to agree with Gregbard though that it should be...
The problem is it's not just Gregbard. WikiProject:Philosophy lists logic as one of it's 6 branches. Philosophy claims logic to be a fundamental part of itself in it's lead paragraph. As for breaking the link from logic to mathematical logic, yes, there are a number of misclassifications that could arise, but I don't think we should let that change categorization order. -Weston.pace21:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is how I see it Weston. If it makes any of the mathematicians feel better, think of the fact that logic is under philosophy as "true, but not very important." Just important enough for the philosophy people from --you know-- not getting cut out. Gregbard02:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When assigning WP categories to articles, I'd be willing to follow the lead of a major organization that seemed to understand the issues. A brief look at http://catalog.loc.gov shows that the US Library of Congress has a subject heading called Logic, Symbolic and mathematical. There are 1,447 books classed under that subject in the LOC. Click on 'More Info' to see the subcategories under the original one, such as Algebraic Logic, Axiomatic Set Theory, etc. Also interesting is the subject Logic which has 3,449 entries. One might argue that philosophy should take on the entire Logic category, and mathematics should confine itself to Logic, Symbolic and mathematical.
This is not entirely different from the question of whether physics articles are mathematics. A lot of them seem to fall into mathematics categories, but I think (going by past discussions) that we are content to let the physicists deal with those. Each WikiProject represents a particular special interest and is simply a coalition of editors devoted to improving Wikipedia's coverage of it. As such, each project defines itself as it would like, and all knowledge being connected, it is not surprising that some border topics should be of interest to several projects. I think (going back to the physics question) that mathematical logic occupies something of a similar role with respect to all logic as does differential geometry with respect to relativity: mathematicians invented it, but it's shot through with physics ideas and is basically indispensible to relativity. If there were a WikiProject Relativity, would we complain if they wanted to claim Einstein manifold? Should we, even? If it is of interest to another scientific discipline, it would probably benefit from their attention so that it can achieve a more complete coverage of the subject.
That said, this logic applies to both parties, and if we are willing to accept WikiProject Logic's interest in our logic articles, they should also accept that we don't perceive mathematical logicians as philosophers. I like the idea of "Mathematical logic" and "Philosophical logic", the latter part of "Philosophy" and the former not. Considering that the purpose of categories is not to represent facts (that goes in the articles) but to organize articles usefully, it would seem more in line with that goal to separate out mathematical logic from philosophical logic simply because it is not useful to someone searching for one to find the other: it will not be meaningful to them. Just like how we, now, encourage articles to be placed in the most specific subcategory they fit. We can include both logic subdivisions into just category "Logic", but that should not be part of "Philosophy" because of the oft-mentioned syllogism. Include it directly into category "Thought" or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Reich (talk • contribs) 20:43, July 31, 2007
(In response to both previous sections) Without trying to be a jerk or anything, I think people are confused as to what philosophy is entirely. The two Davids comments make me think so particularly. "...most of philosophy is fuzzy and indistinct" In philosophy there are two major traditions: the continental/phenomenological (the part that I think you math folks, AND myself wish to avoid), and then there is the analytic/anglo-american tradition. The point of analytic philosophy IS TO CLARIFY. It isn't even about anything metaphysical or anything like that. Logic is part of the analytic tradition. I think your impression of philosophy as "fuzzy" really just tells us about your familiarity with it. I think we should learn to get along in the same space and benefit from it.Gregbard22:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amusingly, since most of the philosophy I read is metaphysics of the continental tradition, it does seem indistinct to me in comparison with mathematics. Regardless, I'm glad that there is now a project for logic and that it's going to take care of some articles that are on our fringe. I don't want to absurdity of topics that fall under categories in mathematical logic that have nothing to do with philosophy (see the above list, or consider my example above that) being miscategorized -- just because organization is important to me. As I said, I'm happy to have another project to help out with (portions of) mathematical logic; that's great. Probably more important is getting the rest of logic (that is, the large portion that isn't mathematical logic) fleshed out, since I just haven't seen much coverage there. Unlike the mathematical side of logic, I wouldn't be comfortable writing or even much working on these articles, but I would like to be able to read and use them.
Is category inclusion a transitive relation? That is if logic is a sub cat of philosophy and mathematical-logic a sub cat of logic then are all articles in mathematical-logic automatically philosophy articles or logic articles? --Salix alba (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(in response to Salix alba) Yes, it's transitive. Category inclusion works exactly like ⊆. What a 'bot might do with the inclusion relationship is another question – that would depend on the way the 'bot is programmed. DavidCBryant15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some confusion here. What do you mean by philosophy articles or logic articles? If you mean articles that derive in some way from the philosophy or logic category then yes, category inclusion is transitive by definition. That definition isn't very useful in practice because of what Kusma mentioned, because categories are mainly meant to be navigational aids. For example, Simpsons is in both Mathematics and Philosophy by that definition. If you mean articles that fall under the scope of the philosophy or logic portals and projects than the answer is no, category inclusion isn't transitive. At least no project or portal I know of has organized things that way. If we're talking about another definition, please explain. -Weston.pace16:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categories have a completely different set of issues from projects. Remember, projects are designed to coordinate the efforts of editors. They can be set up any way that the editors find useful for accomplishing that task.
Categories (honest-to-God categories, not maintenance categories like the ones created by WikiProject banners and applied to talk pages rather than articles) are another thing entirely -- they're aimed at readers, and we need to get them right. In my opinion they should be transitive. If Matthew Foreman is in a category that's a descendant of category:philosophers, that should imply that he's made some actual contribution to philosophy that would be recognized as such by a university philosophy department (which I'm not saying he hasn't; I just don't know of any, though I suppose his arguments on CH are on the borderline). --Trovatore03:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that categories are a navigation aid, and that they should be set up such as to best facilitate navigation. But I don't see how you get from there to a requirement that category membership should be strictly transitive. Could you share your reasoning in more detail, please? As I see it, it should be sufficient that most of the (direct) entries in a subcategory are relevant to someone looking at the supercategory, but to have a few ones that would not by themselves fit in all of the supercategory does not negate the utility (in terms of navagaiblity as well as maintenance) of having a subcategory relation. For example, we might have Category:Fruit >= Category:Apples >= Category:Metaphorical apples >= Category:Trademarks involving apples >= Category:Apple Inc. >= iPod, without implying that an iPod is a fruit. As long as each of the memberships in the chain is itself navigationally well-justified, what harm is done? So what if the transitive closure does not make sense; who says it has to? As far as I know, the mediawiki software does not expose it to the reader (or even compute it). –Henning Makholm05:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you do have an arguable point there. There are however bots that search the category structure in this way. For example I believe list of mathematics articles is culled from a category tree. If there were a similar list of philosophy articles and mathematical logic were a descendant of philosophy, then Borel equivalence relation would wind up in that list, and that would just be silly.
Although it would still imply that the page Apple Inc. was talking about a fruit which I think was his point with the example. Trovatore, there are no bots I know of that search categories in that way. The mathematics bot searches the categories in List of mathematics categories and does not transitively dive into any of them. This is a good thing because as it stands right now you can browse from Category:Mathematics to The Simpsons using categories. I don't know of any bots that search categories in that way because I think most major categories could end up at The Simpsons if you really tried. JPD, you say transitive categories are an important part to how people use Wikipedia, could you clarify? -Weston.pace14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was only one example of where I think the chain should break down. Some of us fight an often losing battle to make the categories transitive. There are several reasons for this, one of them being the fact that the policy of not including articles in supercats makes more sense in that light. It is not particularly important, but it doesn't hurt to use it, especially in this case, which isn't as silly as the apple example. JPD (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then my sincere advise would be to give up your previous position, and adopt the position that mathematical logic really is a part of logic, and that logic is really is a part of philosophy BUT THAT IT ISN'T REALLY THAT IMPORTANT. At least not so important as to do anything so radical as to divorce from philosophy at all costs. Gregbard05:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, mathematical logic is really not part of the sort of logic that's part of philosophy. Or at least most of it isn't. What position I take isn't going to change the facts here. --Trovatore07:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
