Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Main pageDiscussionContentAssessmentParticipantsResources

Merging Archimedean and Catalan solids

Both articles Archimedean solid and Catalan solid have similar properties and relatable topics: they are dual to each other, so they have the same symmetry; two of them have the property of chirality, so their dual are also chiral. Yet, this reason is not strong enough to keep them merged, unless there are more backgrounds in some sources. Anyhow, I guess some of the members of this project do not consent to this idea. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think these should be merged, even though there may be substantial material repeated in both articles. –jacobolus (t) 15:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

When I think of restructuring the article by adding sources and removing some original research, I doubt that their content is too short. Archimedean solids were recognizable for their appearances during the Rennaissance, including the works of artists and mathematicians; I have several changes to the article and added some references for further reading. Yet, the Catalan solids seem less recognizable at all in the background of discovery; some sources mention that they were credited to Eugene Catalan and all dihedral angles of their adjacent faces are the same (although I have to find this claim soon). Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Oriented lines, half-lines, and segments

Lines and line segments ordinarily are not oriented or directed. Hence, the concepts of oriented line and directed line segment are introduced when the distinction is necessary. Now, half-lines are often defined as unoriented or undirected semi-infinite lines (see, e.g., Encyclopedia of Mathematics). But "ray" is a common synonym for half-line, which may cause some confusion with oriented or directed half-lines (see., e.g., PlanetMath). It's useful as a mathematical model for a physical ray of light (in homogeneous media). I was wondering if an uninvolved editor could provide constructive feedback at Line (geometry), please? Thanks! fgnievinski (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Also see various sources in Talk:Laguerre transformations § List of references. Laguerre's word for an oriented line was "semi-droite" (literally "semi-straight"; in Euclid the Greek equivalent of "line" means curve and straight lines need a qualifier, but in English we eventually abbreviated "straight line" as "line"; in French "straight line" was instead abbreviated as "straight"). Later in German and English the names "spear" and "ray" were used. For English Wikipedia's purposes, I think a term such as "oriented line" (or perhaps "directed line") is the most explicit and unambiguous. –jacobolus (t) 04:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have still not gotten a straight answer for how an oriented ray is supposed to be a different thing than just, you know, a ray. fgnievinski has been pushing paragraphs full of technicality on this that convey no information to me.

Now that you're here, fgnievinski, perhaps this question would focus on what is confusing me about your edits. Do you allow rays to be directed only towards their apex, only away from their apex, or do you imagine that there are two kinds of rays, one towards and one away? If there is only one orientation possible for any ray, then there is no point in choosing an orientation of a line and then using it to orient the ray, because there is no choice in how to orient the ray. On the other hand, if you imagine that there are two different kinds of oriented rays, then you should say that more clearly (with a source that says that clearly) instead of all this bafflegab about oriented lines. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

A point and an orientation of a line define a ray. Conversely, a ray defines an oriented line with a specific point. So, the phrase "oriented ray" is at best a pleonasm and at worst confusing (see David's post). It must not be used in Wikipedia, unless there are (I doubt) reliable sources discussing it. D.Lazard (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible that the problem is the same as for DAG (which, when parsed literally, should mean “oriented forest”, but actually means “directed graph with no cycles”)? Like, maybe some people use the phrase “oriented half-line” not with the literal parsing but instead to mean the construction D.Lazard mentions (start with an oriented line, then take half of it)? I don’t see where fgnievinski has used the phrase “oriented ray”. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The exact phrasing was "A semi-infinite oriented line is called a ray", which does not seem correct. –jacobolus (t) 14:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

EoM's definition of "half-line" and PM's first definition, cited above, say nothing about orientation, it just defines a locus. Similarly, Pedoe (1988) defines "half-line" as a set of points, not implying any orientation, and calling point A an "endpoint" instead of "initial point". Wylie (1964) doesn't mention "half-line", it defines a "ray" and initially it doesn't say anything about orientation: point A splits a line in two and point B selects one of the two halves. Orientation only appears later in the discussion, when it says the other half has the opposite direction. It'd benefit the reader to make it more explicit, stating a direction (from A to B) is often implied, although strictly it's not required. For example, the definition of plane angle doesn't require the sides to be orientated, only to be concurrent (meeting at a vertex).

I started assuming "half-line" was unoriented:

		Orientation
		Unoriented	Oriented
Size	Infinite	Line	Oriented line
	Semi- infinite	Half-line or unoriented half-line	Oriented half-line (also: ray)
	Finite	Line segment	Oriented line segment

Now I realize "half-line" is often assumed to be oriented:

		Orientation
		Unoriented	Oriented
Size	Infinite	Line	Oriented line
	Semi- infinite	Unoriented half-line	Oriented half-line or half-line (also: ray)
	Finite	Line segment	Oriented line segment

In any case, the concept of "one half of an unoriented line" exists, however it may be called. fgnievinski (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

You are continuing to fail to address the point. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

the concept of "one half of an unoriented line" exists, – yes, this is called a "half-line" or "ray", and is typically defined as a locus of points. It only has an implicit orientation. I don't think a separate concept of "one half of an oriented line" is very useful / widely used, and we shouldn't imply that this is how the word "ray" is defined. To adopt your table method:

		Orientation
		Unoriented	Oriented
Size	Infinite	Line (Or more explicitly, straight line)	Oriented line (sometimes called a half-line, ray, or spear)
	Semi- infinite	Half-line or ray (note: has an implicit orientation)	N/A – not a commonly used concept
	Finite	Line segment	N/A – inconsistently defined and needs care to describe. More commonly used concepts include ordered pairs of points, or the translation vectors formed from their difference.

–jacobolus (t) 20:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Sticking to the sources cited, some define a half-line or ray as an oriented object, others don't. I fail to see what is lost in recognizing the distinction and conveying more information about the subject. I also see some contradiction in "has an implicit orientation" and "oriented: N/A".

In physics and computer graphics, one often deals with two rays having opposite direction but the same locus. They are called incoming rays and outgoing rays,[1] as if impinging on a receiving antenna or emanating from a transmitting antena, respectively. Using vector formulation, an outgoing ray is r(t)=p+t*d (for positive time t>0, an initial point p, and unit direction d); while an incoming ray is r'(t)=p+t*d' (for negative time t<0, a final point p and reversed viewing direction d'=-d). The two rays trace out the same path -- e.g., r(t=1)=p+d and r'(t=-1)=p+d -- but in reverse time. These two oriented rays occupy the same unoriented half-line. fgnievinski (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe this settles the matter? Otherwise, kindly let me know of any outstanding issue. fgnievinski (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

No, you are getting confused and synthesizing only loosely related material. When people are talking about "incoming" and "outgoing" rays e.g. in Ray tracing (physics) or Ray tracing (graphics), the context is physical (or simulated) light rays (see Ray (optics)), not "rays" as objects of elementary geometry books. As you point out, the mathematical objects used for this modeling are mostly points and vectors. –jacobolus (t) 19:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Physical or simulated light rays have a mathematical formulation in terms of a geometric object. I recognize the elementary treatment of geometric rays assumes a fixed direction (from the endpoint) or no direction at all. But I just showed geometric rays are often formulated with the opposite direction (and the same locus) in some math-intensive disciplines.

This debate raises a bigger issue, and often a point of conflict between Wikipedians working on articles about geometric concepts: should Wikipedia articles about mathematical concepts serve only or mainly mathematicians or also a broader audience? Because time after time I find coverage of applications in physics, mechanics, and engineering to be unwelcomed in articles about geometry. Not rarely, editors who "own" the article start acting in a disparagingly way.

I'm okay if the consensus is to keep mathematical articles confined to the stricter or narrower view of professional mathematicians. Then their applications could be well segregated in other articles, e.g., Ray (optics)#Formulation. fgnievinski (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Physical or simulated light rays have a mathematical formulation in terms of a geometric object. – In my opinion this is not the same as what gets called a "ray" in high school geometry and trigonometry books, even though both are named based on an analogy to light rays. The object called a "ray" in elementary textbooks is defined to be nothing more or less than a half-line, and doesn't have any explicit orientation (but as I said, can be thought of as having an implicit orientation toward the infinite end, just in the sense that it is infinite in this direction; there's no actual motion involved here though as there would be with physical light rays, in a model where space + time are split and treated separately). Making up that there are different types of "incoming" and "outgoing" rays (in the high school geometry sense) with different orientations in my opinion is an idiosyncratic personal definition of yours which is not supported by sources and cannot be stated with Wikipedia's voice without violating policies about NPOV/OR.

–jacobolus (t) 05:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, an important distinction between objects like rays, lines, and segments as usually defined vs. oriented lines is that the former types objects are considered to be loci of points, whereas oriented lines are considered to be primary objects in themselves. I think we should probably have a separate article titled Oriented line and eventually another one titled Laguerre geometry describing the resulting geometry when oriented lines are taken to be the fundamental objects rather than points.

Instead of "A semi-infinite oriented line is called a ray", it would be more supportable to say something along the lines of "A ray is half of a line which has been divided by a point, which is infinite in one direction, and is thus similar to an oriented line insofar as it has an implicit orientation." –jacobolus (t) 17:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's also pretty common in some other flavors of geometry such as projective geometry to think of points and lines as primary objects with an incidence relation, rather than lines as subsets of points. The difference is that the subset conceptualization still works, while in oriented geometry you need the lines to be objects so you can attach orientations to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, the only true difference between lines defined as primitive objects and lines defined as sets of points is that the incidence relation is denoted with ⁠$\in$⁠ in the latter case.

To editor Jacobolus: "half of a line" is a confusing formulation, since it implies that a line has more than two halves. So I would say: "A ray is the part of a line that is located on one side of a point of the line; thus a ray is infinite in one direction, and has an implicit orientation (from the point toward infinity on the ray), which defines an orientation of the line that contains the ray". D.Lazard (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Emmy Noether FA review

It would be much appreciated if people could read the Emmy Noether article and check for statements that are unclear, under-cited, or otherwise unbecoming the encyclopedia project. XOR'easter (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

For those more knowledgeable with the subject matter than I am, the two sections that may need some more citations the most are the ones on ascending and descending chain conditions and algebraic invariant theory. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

My impression from working on the article previously was that everything discussed in it is addressed in the references already present (and for a math topic, having a clickly blue linky number for each sentence doesn't necessarily go further to satisfying WP:V than having one per subsection). But this would be a good opportunity to point readers at references that are particularly good. Anybody have favorite books about either of those? XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The section on algebraic invariant theory doesn't make enough contact with Noether's work in the area, which was eclipsed by that of Hilbert. Both the Rowe and Dick source describe her dissertation done under Gordan, which was devoted to symbolic computation of invariants, and in fact a later source of some embarrassment. The section would benefit by emphasizing this, and summarizing the sources better (and referring to them). Tito Omburo (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Care to tackle that? I could try, but I'm not sure when I'll have an uninterrupted block of time long enough. XOR'easter (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo, @Tito Omburo, @XOR'easter. The discussion now is into FARC: one delist and one keep. I have found some of the unsourced sections after looking up at its content. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Pseudomath?

I can’t read the source in this edit and it’s published in an apparently legitimate (biology) journal, but the claim it makes is eyeroll-inducing, at least for me. Thoughts? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd file this under the general trend of finding Fibonacci/golden ratio in nature. I wouldn't call it pseudoscience, but it does strike me as controversial. Tito Omburo (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The paper referenced is 2024 and an uncited primary reference. In the physics Wikiproject we often remove these as not notable, non-encyclopedic sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like total junk to me, and worthy of being removed, but not as harmful as the junk financial advice based on Fibonacci numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I concur with the removal. Any claim in an area that is rife with silly assertions needs much more solid support than that. XOR'easter (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Pi day event

I and @Daniel Mietchen were discussing potential community events to enhance mathematics articles on-wiki, and one idea that came up was an event for Pi day (or Pi Month). There's been some site-wide activities in the past such as the 30kB vital articles drive, which was successful, and we could model something similar or opt for a more interactive approach, like a virtual edit-a-thon. Since Pi day is still several months away, there's plenty of time to plan. I’m posting this here to gauge interest and gather initial ideas. Would this be something people would want to participate in? And if so, would anyone be interested in joining a planning committee to help organize and shape the event? Mathnerd314159 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a debatable idea. Enhancing mathematics article is best done by people who know and care about the subject matter and have a good background in mathematics and logical reasoning, not to mention clarity of exposition. We don't want random undergraduates starting to edit articles willy-nilly, which will then have to be re-tweaked by others. If you have a way to ensure the proficiency of the participants, fine. Otherwise, I am doubtful. PatrickR2 (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not a stance I agree with at all. It's elitist and against the fundamental principle of Wikipedia, an encyclopaedia anyone can edit. You don't need a background in mathematics to edit mathematics articles. Besides, you would think anyone attending a pi day edit-a-thon will indeed have an interest in the subject.Polyamorph (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is true that the quality of the articles produced is a concern. I was thinking particularly of starting with the Requested articles list, where (generally speaking) any article is better than no article. And then as Polyamorph says, anyone (including "random undergraduates") can produce a good article - it is just a matter of educating them in Wikipedia's policies and providing them with the appropriate resources to write the article. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I wrote a general advice page to help with that sort of thing. XOR'easter (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Especially when dealing with the requested articles list, familiarity both with Wikipedia norms and the subject matter is important, because the list has not been curated for notability or significance and many of its requests duplicate existing articles, consist of much-needed gaps in the literature, or are attempts at self-promotion. I would not necessarily expect enough discernment from typical edit-a-thon participants. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I find these comments distasteful, elitist, and gatekeeping. Anyone, including edit-a-thon participants are more than welcome to edit any article they want. Users new and old pick up policy and best practice along the way. Discouraging users on the basis of a preconceived idea of their competence goes against the third pillar WP:5P3. Wikipedia needs new users, they should be encouraged. Polyamorph (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, the unhappy fact is that a lot of student edits (e.g., those done for class assignments) have turned out badly. If we want an edit-a-thon to go well, someone has to do the ground work first, like curating a better list of potential articles. Looking over the suggestions linked above, I'm seeing many examples where amateurs and undergraduates would have no idea what the topic even means. A list of potential biography articles might be a better starting point. XOR'easter (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to bring up cleanup required after class assignments. It's one thing to create new articles, another thing to try to rewrite mathematics content. Tito Omburo (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Class assignments, where students are required to edit are not the same as an edit-a-thon where people volunteer to edit with the same motivation and goals as the rest of us. I concur that there are sometimes issues with WikiEd activities, but this is not what Mathnerd314159 is proposing. As with any edit, if a mistake is made or the content is not suitable, for whatever reason, then it will be dealt with in the standard way. Any activity that encourages good faith editing by new users should be encouraged, and no article should be off-limits. Polyamorph (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, people who volunteer are going to have a higher level of enthusiasm, all else being equal, which is good. I think many of the same concerns that we've had with WikiEd contributions will still apply, though: unfamiliarity with what counts as a good reference, unfamiliarity with encyclopedic writing style, biting off more than a novice can chew, etc. I don't want to discourage anyone from trying their hand at editing, and I don't want to discourage experienced editors from running an activity like this; I'm just saying that we need to have a realistic sense of the challenges and a solid plan to address them. For example, as noted above, we can do better at suggesting new articles to create and existing articles to improve. We can also identify good references ahead of time and make sure they are available to edit-a-thon participants. We can curate a collection of high-quality Wikipedia articles that can serve as examples for new editors to learn from. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That is very reasonable, and I would agree that good planning will help improve the chances of successful outcomes. Polyamorph (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

A meta comment: I think you should not worry so much about about defending this proposal -- people who are grumpy about it will be grumpy about it, and whether it is successful or not will not depend heavily on trying to convince people who get grumpy thinking about it that actually it's a good idea. JBL (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. But the assumption that any newcomer is going to be a net negative when so much mathematical content is already in a dire state goes completely against the core principles of the project. Polyamorph (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

"Class" vs "editathon" seems a distinction without a difference. We're basically talking about a sort of workshop, right? Tito Omburo (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

a lot of student edits (e.g., those done for class assignments) have turned out badly. – I really think this is down to poor planning and support from course instructors making such assignments and whatever Wikipedia-side staff are supposed to be helping out. Every time I have tried to start a conversation with students or course instructors about helping mentor students to make their project successful, I have not gotten a useful reply. My understanding is that some course projects (not in topic areas I pay attention to) have been highly successful, based on the instructor having enough knowledge and commitment of work/attention to make it work. I think it's plausible to make student edits valuable but it takes the student picking an appropriate scope for their edits and then doing the careful research in reliable sources to support changes. –jacobolus (t) 19:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Polyamorph This is not an elitist position. We don't want to discourage anyone from editing Wikipedia. But at the same time, it is easier for someone to start editing articles in sciences like physics or biology, I would say, since there are probably more sources in these areas written for a general public that editors could draw on. But, as they say, "there is no royal road to mathematics". PatrickR2 (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That's obviously complete nonsense. There are an abundance of mathematical sources accessible to mere mortals. Polyamorph (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That reminds me of Anton Ego in Ratatouille, one of the best animated movies ever: ... Chef Gusteau's famous motto, 'Anyone can cook.' But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist; but a great artist *can* come from *anywhere*. Not everyone can be a great Wikipedia mathematics editor, but a great Wikipedia mathematics editor can come from anywhere :-) PatrickR2 (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Random undergraduates circa 2005–2010 were the originators of a substantial proportion of our mathematical Wikipedia articles about topics commonly seen in undergraduate coursework. The nice thing about a long-term public project is that poorly started articles or sections can be later improved, including by experts. –jacobolus (t) 15:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep. I was a random under/postgrad in that time-frame, which is coincidently when I started editing :) Polyamorph (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

One of the reasons I tend to avoid articles on standard topics of undergraduate courses is that it can be a very frustrating experience. These articles tend to read like they were written by undergraduates who were taking the course and half-understood the material (probably because they were) and require a lot of cleanup. Worse, because different textbooks cover these topics in superficially different ways, any cleanup is likely to be quickly undone by another undergraduate who doesn't recognize the differences, thinks the article is incorrect because it doesn't exactly follow the textbook they are using, and rewrites the article back to its previous half-understood level following another source. So then all the cleanup needs to be redone, or the changes reverted and another enthusiastic new editor bitten by causing their efforts to be completely thrown away. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

On the flip side, we still have plenty of topics at the advanced undergrad level which are missing entirely, and something is better than nothing. I think the main problem we have is insufficient work and attention to mathematical subjects overall and insufficient expert attention, rather than too much attention from undergraduates per se. As you say, some frustration comes from topics having varied terminology/description/organization in various sources, which are sometimes even the subject of quasi-ideological disputes between authors, but topics appearing in multiple areas of mathematics are also usually more centrally connected with larger scope, etc. compared to more specific or obscure topics.

But such topics are also more likely to be clicked on and overall perhaps more important to get right. For instance, it was great that you could bring Simple polygon up to have clear and concise prose, clear organization, and relatively complete coverage, but it would be better still to get Polygon to a similar standard (even though it would take more work and be more frustrating to accomplish).

If you find any particular poor articles you want to see improved, we could try to organize a few people to go work on one or a few at a time. –jacobolus (t) 20:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to see Circle improved. It's under-cited, heavy on bullet points, disorganized, etc. Fixing all that would be a big job, and edit-a-thon contributors might well be lost at sea. But perhaps improving citations would be a way to ease them into article improvement. Prep work would have to be done in advance, though, like finding good geometry books at the appropriate level and making sure those books are available to the edit-a-thon participants. I believe some of the Women in Red events have been held at libraries for just that reason. XOR'easter (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

And then putting the article into the higher-class as in GA, or FA if necessary to feature it on Wikipedia's main page? Love to see more articles enhanced to be suitably referenced and in splendacious format, especially when the article features on Pi day. If I would like to help to do it, that's fine, but I have no idea how long I can improve this, and how much I can understand the topic. The topic was somewhat harder than I thought, especially about the historical background, just like I had to postpone Sine and cosine.

Speaking of Pi Day the next year, I already have proposed a recent new featured list. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@XOR'easter I'd also like to see Circle improved. Perhaps an edit-a-thon could be a place for it; I don't have much experience with such events. One problem is that if people start working in earnest on this, by the time any edit-a-thon rolls around an article might be in good enough shape to not need the event participants' help anymore. But I guess if so whatever is learned from that could be applied to some next topic.

One thing that could make an edit-a-thon (or other collaboration) successful and an effective use of volunteers' time (both planners/mentors and participants on the day) if we want to improve substantially underdeveloped or poorly developed articles is figuring out a better collaborative writing process than the common one of making scattered piecemeal changes from with the content as it exists at any particular time, so we can build some amount of consensus ahead of time and make relatively concrete requests for help needed so people can get right to work.

I think the most important first step (irrespective of who would be working on the project) for e.g. Circle is figuring out a better list of important sub-topics and structure and narrative flow for them. I don't think there's much worth salvaging about the current organization of that article, and the current content needs a lot of rework. A list of good sources at various levels would also be great, especially if also structured a bit into specific topics or perspectives. If there is a good structured outline of topics with varying types/amounts of work needed to finish them, and a relatively clear indication of what each part needs, that could give short-term volunteers a bit more manageable chunk of something to work on.

Is there a good type of place for collective pre-writing activities like making outlines or gathering sources? Talk pages per se aren't great IMO. I'm thinking something like Talk:Circle/Brainstorm or Talk:Circle/Rough drafts. –jacobolus (t) 18:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I made a page in user space. XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Re "...that it can be a very frustrating experience": That's sad to hear it. Just like the days you were used to nominate articles on elementary stuffs like Isosceles triangle and Kite (geometry)

Re "...they were written by undergraduates who were taking the course and half-understood the material (probably because they were) and require a lot of cleanup.": Even restricted things in Wikipedia like, you know, to prevent users or anonymous to edit specific articles?

Re "...exactly follow the textbook they are using, and rewrites the article back to its previous half-understood level following another source." But seriously, this is exactly when I was recently taking a course, finding the models in incidence geometry, but could not find anything exactly in Wikipedia here. So, I just randomly use my intuition. And that's why two FAQs are beneficial to find the reason why "it is not here in Wikipedia", or whatever it is.

Re "another enthusiastic new editor bitten by causing their efforts to be completely thrown away": It happened when I restructured the polyhedral article Regular dodecahedron, and a new editor who did not touch the tools of writing the article complaint for no reason and demand for adding something, or an IP in Johnson solid who would like to restore the article; in this case, I think they were not getting used to with the renewed article.

Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:M. Lawrence Glasser - need help

I declined this draft but the creator, @Mofembot, reached out to me on my talk page with some additional information, namely he is responsible for Glasser's master theorem, so very likely notable. However, they are getting most of their information from family members so the draft is currently unsourced or poorly sourced and they, like me, are not a mathematician so struggling a bit. Any help is appreciated. S0091 (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately most living academics haven't been subjects of e.g. magazine profiles or published biographies, which makes it hard to verify claims using what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources, and often "influence" is just found in the form of citations to their work rather than clear surveys or extended critical analysis, which can make it hard to establish notability. Often obituaries end up being the best sources about dead academics, but obviously that doesn't help with living people. Sometimes a source like an article announcing someone's retirement, an award announcement, or the introduction of a Festschrift will contain relevant introductory material about the honoree's life. I think the main advice for any under-sourced Wikipedia article is: keep hunting for sources. –jacobolus (t) 16:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Two deletions

Would like to invite members of this project in the following:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of convex regular-faced polyhedra
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 13#3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820#3.1415926535…

Dedhert.Jr (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Continued fraction

Please see Talk:Continued fraction where an editor is suggesting moving the article to a different title so that something else can be moved into its place, and contribute to the discussion there if you have an opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Unwelcoming project

As a new user, I have found this project unwelcoming. I do not intend to contribute further to mathematics articles on Wikipedia again in the short term and I regret my contributions in good faith on the backlog of undergraduate calculus material. RowanElder (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@RowanElder Can you elaborate? From a skim I don't see that you were involved in any particularly heated disputes, edit wars, etc., though there was one (to me minor seeming) talk page miscommunication with another editor recently. It seems like your contributions have been accepted without issue. Is you concern a lack of positive affirmation? Not enough collaboration? I don't understand why you would regret contributing: did it seem like a waste of time? I'm sure readers benefit from improvements, even if they are unlikely to tell you so.

Most subjects in Wikipedia have relatively few active participants, and in mathematics in particular there are many (many) articles relative to the number of people keeping an eye on them, so articles tend to sit for long periods in a relatively stable state until someone takes an active interest in changing one whereupon there can be a flurry of activity. It's pretty common for even significant changes to be passively accepted without anyone commenting about it. (See Wikipedia:Expect no thanks.) It's also relatively common for changes to lead to disagreement, and the medium of pseudonymous public editing between strangers lends itself to misunderstandings, especially if participants argue assertively for their preferred version.

Anyway, this is an entirely volunteer project, and nobody can make you stay. Do what you need to do for yourself. All the best. –jacobolus (t) 19:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I do regret spent time -- not entirely wasted -- but more an uncertain probability that (a) I've created evidence for other future editors that this is not rewarding work for them to do and (b) empowered and probably encouraged apparently entrenched patterns of unwelcoming behavior, people who will feel "gratified that an interloper was run off" whether they would say so or not. I do not regret getting better information to readers. I'm not feeling forced to stay, thanks, and I am only saying this now because otherwise I would be ghosting the project. Ghosting seemed relatively more rude and more likely discouraging to continuing editors who do intend to be welcoming -- it would give them no idea why I chose not to continue to contribute, and thus no easy way to think about what to hope or plan differently for in the future.

Lack of positive affirmation and collaboration did matter to me, but not decisively. Respectful explanations of policies and patterns would have been much more important for welcoming. Assertive argument and respectful argument are two different things and I was not finding the arguments respectful. I had not been aware of Wikipedia:Expect no thanks, but I would say "while we should edit Wikipedia for the love of the project, not primarily with the hope of being thanked, a little more thanks would go a long way" from the "in a nutshell" is on the mark for me. I did try to be respectful and thankful in discussions, but this now seems to have been a mistake (a mistake specifically on the pages of this project, not in general). RowanElder (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"created evidence for other future editors that this is not rewarding work" – this seems unlikely to me. Realistically, few editors, especially newcomers, read old talk page conversations. "gratified that an interloper was run off" – if you mean yourself as the "interloper", then this doesn't seem like a remotely accurate characterization of any of the people you have engaged with that I have seen (though most Wikipedians do want to "run off" obvious spammers or trolls – which you are not). "encouraged apparently entrenched patterns of unwelcoming behavior" – I think you are misunderstanding people's actions and making inaccurate assumptions about their goals and motivations, as well as exaggerating the impact a couple of conversations will have on editors who are routinely involved in more dramatic conflicts (like anyone who spends much time on Wikipedia). But consider that from an outsider's perspective your own actions (e.g. edit warring) are not obviously friendlier or less friendly than your interlocutors. Would you consider it fair to e.g. call you a "newcomer with an entrenched pattern of mischief-making" or some similar exaggerated mischaracterization? I assume not – at least it wouldn't seem fair to me. As far as I can tell, the folks on both sides of your (to my view quite mild) disagreement were acting in good faith, and this kind of conflict is usually relatively amicably resolved, though sometimes people end up frustrated or resentful (sometimes on both sides if a dispute gets heated). Wiki editing does take a thicker skin than more personal kinds of collaboration though, and isn't for everyone. –jacobolus (t) 22:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This is among the patterns I meant I have probably helped entrench further: "Wiki editing does take a thicker skin than more personal kinds of collaboration though, and isn't for everyone." It's true as a proposition, I don't argue against that, and yet it can also serve as a form of justification for being unwelcoming, to "get the people who just aren't cut out for this to just move on." In this case here, I now believe that it *is* serving as that form of justification. It's a type of unwelcoming that is common and hardly blamable, which is why I wasn't initially singling anyone out. They wouldn't deserve that. This is the sort of normal level of everyday non-emergency customer dissatisfaction that I'd have put in a comment box on a confidential customer exit survey when cancelling a subscription, if this Wikiproject were a subscription I was cancelling.

That sort of common unwelcoming is especially commonly attributed to the social sides of STEM fields in general by non-STEM outsiders: a sort of "you either get it or you don't, and we can't help you much if you don't" attitude that rubs outsiders as unwelcoming whether or not it's meant to be unwelcoming. So I'm really truly not trying to say something earth-shattering and controversial here, or something that should "force anyone to wake up" or anything like that. When I said "interloper," that means "someone who doesn't belong," and if "someone with thin skin doesn't belong" and "he had thin skin", that's all that's needed for that feeling to be present in the way I had in mind. "Gratified that this guy who didn't belong realized it and moved on already."

Being unwelcoming does not seem to be an exaggeration to me. I am, in fact, actually walking away after feeling unwelcome. Entrenchment also does not seem to be an exaggeration to me because I did read a lot of talk pages and see that the same issues discouraging me now seem to have been discouraging other newcomer editors years, even decades ago (for the pages I've been editing, it doesn't take long to go back decades on the talk pages). This pattern of imputing that I must have made a hasty, mistaken decision here is in fact part of the ordinary, taken for granted entrenched patterns I was talking about.

The pressure of being long-time Wikipedia maintainers and dealing with the drama is clearly real. It is clearly difficult to handle and clearly takes a toll on the capacity to assume the best of others. It also seems to have encouraged and entrenched unwelcoming habits. This doesn't seem exaggerated or implausible or unfair to me: it seems totally sympathetic.

Yes, I would be alarmed if someone "e.g. call[ed] [me] a "newcomer with an entrenched pattern of mischief-making"", first since I don't have any patterns on Wikipedia at all longer than a few months and second since I hadn't been accused of mischief yet that I was aware of. "Entrenched pattern of naive mistakes" would be fair, though. I was accused of and I do have entrenched patterns of making naive mistakes, like not checking Mathematical point was more than a disambiguation page when editing Fixed point (mathematics) or not checking that Monomial included one of the definitions of monomial that I took for granted when editing Power series. I had been asking for help and patience and hoping to dis-entrench them. I was naive! I did find this project unwelcoming. Both seem easy to say without any shock.

I have had no question that the people on the other sides of my disputes were acting in good faith with respect to their stylistic preferences and opinions about content. RowanElder (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

(ec) Is this entirely about Power series? --JBL (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Not entirely and not primarily. Fixed point (mathematics) was just as frustrating much earlier and I continued for several weeks after. RowanElder (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

No single talk page or edit would capture my reasons for deciding I felt unwelcome, it was something I thought about over several weeks, but for "specific low points," this would be the lowest: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASeries_%28mathematics%29&diff=1253371205&oldid=1253346968

I don't know that much about comment threading on Wikipedia pages. If I made a terrible faux pas there that could be explained to me, I'd have happily apologized and learned how to avoid it in the future. Things weren't getting explained, though. I really had and have very little idea what that reply was trying to say! RowanElder (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Your deleted reply -- which I got as a notification, so I saw it and felt the sting of it though I appreciate you deleted the part that you must have realized crossed a line -- is typical of why I feel unwelcome. For others, to understand what I just saw as a notification:

"I got in an edit-war with one person and now I won't edit math articles" ok I mean sure but maybe after you were first reverted you could have opened a talk-page discussion (as per [[WP:BRD]]) and moved to substantive discussion/consensus-building as step 3 instead of edit-warring/hurt feelings?

This sort of jumping to conclusions and psychologizing the other editor is not welcoming behavior. RowanElder (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

To clarify something here: I did feel a sting here but also I don't hate getting stung like this or take it very personally. The habit of jumping to an interpretation like that is very sympathetic to me. I've been an accidentally hasty-to-judge and unwelcoming person myself, in other parts of my life. It's exactly because I know how easy it is to accidentally fall into these habits and start taking the (lonely) consequences for granted that I'm choosing to speak up right now. RowanElder (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I can sympathize with this. I'm still relatively new compared to the other users who have been here for 10+ years, and I understand the frustration.

I can't make you stay, but if you're willing to reconsider, just hear me out...

I don't think the community itself is unwelcoming, in fact, in my experience, most the individuals I interact with are very respectful and professional, however (and not mentioning anyone in particular), there are certainly individuals who are quick to WP:bite the newcomers. But they are not the majority.

My only real issue with this community is that, of those individuals who are respectful and welcoming, I have never seen them call out another user for biting newcomers, always leaving the newcomer to fend for themselves.

Anyway, all this to say: yes, there are frustrating individuals here, but as long as stay respectful and keep your hands clean, there are Wikipedia Policies to deal with them. Maybe try getting familiar with WP:Edit warring and particularly WP:3 revert rule. If you're respectful and reasonable, a Wikipedia administrator will be willing to vouch for you and has the power to handle the situation. However, in my experience, it never gets this far.

Though, for what it's worth, I've enjoyed your edits here, especially on Series (mathematics) (which is looking a lot better IMO). I do hope you'll stay, even if you edit here less often, but I understand your decision either way. Farkle Griffen (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your sympathy and for appreciating the work on Series. I'm not going to reconsider in less than six weeks, and I'll check how you're being treated on your contributions history before I make a decision. Looking over your history a few days ago was part of how I became confident my experience wasn't just a purely personal issue. I really don't enjoy being treated in ways that seem taken for granted and widely tolerated here; people are welcome to call it a thin skin if they want to continue to be unwelcoming to people like me or they could call it a sensitivity to disrespect if they are interested in retaining people like me as would-be editors.

I appreciate your impulse to defend the community also, and it's part of why I didn't and don't assert that this Wikiproject's community is unwelcoming in itself; afaict I didn't meet a community (and I wasn't invited to that I saw). I assert that I found the project unwelcoming from outside the community and that there are some entrenched habits in the Wikiproject that are unwelcoming, but neither of those would prove that the project's community was itself unwelcoming. Neither is decisive for going further to "the project is unwelcoming as such." However, I also don't need think I need to prove "the project is unwelcoming as such" to justify "leaving because I do not feel welcome." That weaker, more superficial, more personal claim "that I felt unwelcome" is enough to justify a personal action. I didn't volunteer to do a community audit here! I just tried to help out and bounced off and wanted to say why as I bounce. I wanted to say why since the shortage of editors, esp. on the pages I was editing, seemed generally agreed to be a problem, and there I was becoming the problem.

I just don't like to ghost things. Since the normal communication patterns here were never well-explained to me as a newcomer and I hadn't made any personal connections I felt I could talk to individually about the issue, I just went with a message to the project. I do have a pretty thick skin in some ways, so though I anticipated the message would be mistakenly interpreted in ways that it was mistakenly interpreted, I also felt confident I could follow it up. RowanElder (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The issues discussed here are not unique to the Mathematics project or even to Wikipedia. Encouraging newcomers is a challenge in all social arenas, especially when some percentage of newcomers are in fact vandals or only interested self-promotion. We can only try harder. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they're certainly not unique and it is always a challenge to be welcoming. Trying harder, smarter, and more wisely are all possible paths forward, and I hope that my speaking up can help those aiming to try harder, smarter, and/or more wisely. RowanElder (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I've now said as much as I intend to here. This was a negative experience for me but I hope that it can be instructive and that things might change. I do not plan to continue replying to future replies unless one is surprisingly insightful. RowanElder (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Principal component analysis

Some experienced eyes might be useful here. A professor has been trying to add a reference to a review he has written with five other top-flight authors (including Trevor Hastie), and has been getting quite a bumpy ride. Jheald (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

No kidding that that's a bumpy ride. RowanElder (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Sharpness (cutting)

I have just recently created Sharpness (cutting), with the current focus being on sharpness occurring in nature (sharpness of stones, thorns, teeth, claws, horns, etc.). Is there such a thing as a mathematical definition or theory of sharpness that should be included? I would note that one article that I cited says: "an objective, dimensionless blade sharpness index BSI that relates the energy W_CI (Nm) necessary to initiate a cut to the product of cut initiation depth CI (m), thickness x (m) and fracture toughness J (J/m2) of the testing material BSI = W_CI/CI•x•J where BSI = 0 indicates a blade with ideal sharpness, and an increase in BSI can be interpreted as decreasing sharpness". I don't know what that means. BD2412 T 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Try the WikiProject for Physics instead. PatrickR2 (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.04.297 and the papers that cite it may be useful. –jacobolus (t) 04:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jacobolus: Thanks, I will have a look. BD2412 T 13:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Soft cell (shape)

A new class of shapes has recently been published. They are called soft cells - where I've made brief start at an article. I don't have much time to dedicate to this at the moment, but I think it warrants some attention if anyone is interested. Tayste (edits) 22:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tayste Well, this leads me to a question: Are there any backgrounds of that tiling discovery? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Dispute in Algebra

The featured article Algebra has taken onto the dispute by two users, with the reason that the article continues to expand even further or personalization things (or whatever it is). More users for giving points of view in Talk:Algebra#Recent changes to subsection "Polynomials". Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)