From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main page Discussion Content Assessment Participants Resources
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
Shortcut: WT:WPM

Invitation

Hello all, I would like to invite you to attend in Articles for deletion/Similarity-based-TOPSIS and submit your opinion. I know that this article is in the field of operations research but there is no project related to operations research. Thank you in advance. Scholartop ( talk) 06:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Including maths rating

I would gladly include {{ maths rating}} in some other articles that almost contain mathematical topics. However, is it still allowed to include this template in articles that contain fewer mathematical subjects? I was considering that it could be possible to add it in Quasicrystal since it has fewer mathematical subjects, but most of this describes chemistry. I am not sure whether it would be appropriate for this project. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 12:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

I went ahead and added it to Quasicrystal. In general there doesn't seem to be any problem with putting partially mathematical topics into the math wikiproject. – jacobolus  (t) 16:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I see. Thank you. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 02:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Harish Chandra Rajpoot links

The IP accounts Special:Contributions/103.21.125.84 and Special:Contributions/103.21.127.79 keep adding links to academia.edu and arXiv articles by Harish Chandra Rajpoot to the external links sections, e.g. to Trapezohedron, Great-circle distance, Solid angle, Descartes' theorem, Circle packing. My speculation is that these IPs are being used by Mr. Rajpoot himself (apparently a graduate student at IIT Bombay) to promote his papers here. I removed several of these links because, while relevant, the content raises some other red flags: Rajpoot's papers don't cite any prior sources and name known results after himself. I left a comment on his talk page suggesting he may want to try publishing his work in a peer-reviewed journal; in response he put back a new link, this time to the paper "HCR’S THEORY OF POLYGON 'Solid Angle Subtended By Any Polygonal Plane at Any Point in the Space'" "published" in the journal International Journal of Mathematics and Physical Sciences Research by "Research Publish Journals", which does not seem to be peer reviewed. Does someone else want to try to talk to this IP user and try to get them to engage in conversation? – jacobolus  (t) 16:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

BIT predicate

Over on BIT predicate, we have an IP editor who seems intent on cramming as much off-topic notation-heavy WP:TECHNICAL detail as possible into the history section. More eyes on this would be helpful. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

@ David Eppstein: The Ackermann coding is already discussed in the history section. It is clearly not off-topic. Where else would such content go?
That aside, your combative behavior over this constructive edit (calling it an "attack" and talking about "hurting my feelings") has been disturbing. One expects more maturity from a professor. See WP:AGF and WP:PA. 2601:547:501:8F90:6D91:586F:CC4B:73D2 ( talk) 21:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Your edit has been reverted by multiple people now. If you think there are good reasons for it, please open a discussion on the talk page of BIT predicate first so a consensus can be reached on whether this belongs in the history section, or in another section, or should not be in the article at all. PatrickR2 ( talk) 16:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
@ PatrickR2: What do you mean by "multiple people"? Also, see WP:OWNERSHIP. 2601:547:501:8F90:75EF:C82F:5D9:1C9 ( talk) 23:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Multiple, as in more than one: David Eppstein and Russ Woodroofe have both reverted you. 128.164.177.55 ( talk) 16:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
WP:OWNERSHIP doesn't mean that editors who care about specific pages can't make arguments for their preferred versions or ask other editors to go to the talk page and establish some consensus before making significant changes. To quote that page, "Even though editors can never 'own' an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor; it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article. [...] In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state and will revert edits that they find detrimental in order, they believe, to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not indicate an "ownership" problem [...] Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly."jacobolus  (t) 02:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Standardizing Mathematical Notation. CactiStaccingCrane 13:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

I suggest moving this article to the drafts space. I think the subject of this article meets WP:GNG, but I don't think this article meets the criteria for a stub. I thought about moving this article to the draft space, but WP:DRAFTIFY said articles older than 90 days should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD, so it seems necessary to discuss it first. If someone extends this article, I will withdraw this suggestion. thanks ! SilverMatsu ( talk) 11:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

No need to draftify. The content of this article is essentially reduced to an implicit link to the definition given in another article. So, I'll redirect this article to the anchor that I have already added in that article. D.Lazard ( talk) 12:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
 Done D.Lazard ( talk) 12:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I agree. Thank you ! -- SilverMatsu ( talk) 13:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Just popping in to say that there is another notion of delta invariant in K-stability of Fano varieties (see K-stability_of_Fano_varieties#Delta_invariant) which is probably mildly more esoteric than the notion for curves. I'm not suggesting anyone do anything with this information but if the article Delta invariant was to return it could even be a disambiguation page. Tazerenix ( talk) 01:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
Thank you for letting me know. I added Template:Redirect to the top of the section. If someone adds an explanation about another notion of delta invariant to wikipedia, I think that they will create separate articles for each notion, or add explanations to existing separate articles for each notion, so create a Dab page at that time I agree that there is a need.-- SilverMatsu ( talk) 03:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Root of unity modulo n

I am not sure that this article is not ready to have its own. It has lack context and many things. Most of the texts, as I glanced at, especially in this part, use many second-person pronouns; however, MOS:YOU mentions that one should avoid such words. Because of these problems, would it be possible to merge it into Roots of unity? Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 15:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

I have cleaned the lead up to understand the real content of the article. IMO, Root of unity modulo n, Primitive root modulo n and Carmichael function must be merged in a single article, which could be called Root of unity modulo n. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
would it be possible to merge it into Roots of unity? No. -- JBL ( talk) 22:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

 You are invited to join the discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1§ Proposal: Add parameter |eudml=. Need advice on whether the European Digital Mathematics Library (Parameter |eudml=) meets WP:GNG. thanks ! SilverMatsu ( talk) 07:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

what is a cantellated great icosahedron?

Ya got yer

But where are the cantellate ( great rhombicosidodecahedron is something else) and the omnitruncate? Are they also degenerate? It would be good to note that somewhere. — Tamfang ( talk) 05:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

This type of thread is better reserved for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Partofthemachine ( talk) 05:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Reply reply
I put it here because on Refdesk (with which I am better acquainted than with Projects) my last sentence is likely to provoke "that belongs on the relevant Talk page(s)." Because you ask nicely I'll try it there, omitting that sentence. — Tamfang ( talk) 06:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 ( talk) 20:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Reply reply

RfD requiring input

Input is requested at the RfD concerning the target of the redirect page Free term. 66.44.62.177 ( talk) 01:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Reply reply