Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2020/Jul

Surface_plasmon_resonance_microscopy has a number of equations written with custom formatting. I'm not to familiar with math formatting on-wiki. Could someone fro mthis project take a quick skim through to see if they're easily re-writable? Thanks in advance for any assistance! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: You weren't kidding! Michael Hardy made some improvements, I did some more, and there's still plenty to be done. I should note that some of the formulas whose formatting I improved are clearly either wrong or incoherent or both. --JBL (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@JBL,Michael Hardy: Thanks! And also useful (and worrying) to know that they had errors/ambiguities. I've also pinged WP:phys on this, since fixing them is pushing my outside my abilities. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 08:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Ok, sounds good. To be precise, it's clear that the numbered equation Eq. 9 cannot be what was intended. --JBL (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

As with any other content, apply WP:V. If there is doubt about an equation and it cannot be verified by reference to a cited source, delete it.--Srleffler (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This is an absurd suggestion; the article has all sorts of problems, but people with no understanding of the content randomly deleting portions of it will make those problems worse, not better. --JBL (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if you do not know the subject, but are sure the equation is wrong, then go to the source to find a correct version. If there is no source, then apply the citation needed template which will warn people that the equation should not be trusted. Just deleting it may make it difficult for someone who knows the subject to fix the article since it leaves him/her with no hint as to what was intended. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I just did the remaining 2, I think that's all of them. There were outright mistakes in notation in these ones too, with things suddenly changing from line to line. But I have 0 background whatsoever in the topic and much of the text is incoherent so I found that all I could really do is format :( - Astrophobe (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis, Michael Hardy, JRSpriggs, and Astrophobe: To check in on this one, Charles Campbell (who does some research in this area) has offered to take a look through but asked if there are any that are still flagged as questionable? Thanks again for the assistance on this. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 09:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That's great! The ones that I worked on, Equations 13 and 14, remain (to my eyes) incoherent. The description of the variables under equation 13 makes no sense (I can't even parse the English), and among other things I have no clue what the dots mean in equation 14. Would be great to have an expert look at those. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I've now asked specifically about Eqn 13 and 14. In the meantime, their previous feedback: "If you ask me, there are way too many equations. #1-11 are useless and should just be in the section on Surface plasmon resonance (SPR), and only referred to here in the SPRM section. I am sad to say the SPR section (which needs those equations) has essentially none. The important equations for SPRM are given in Eq. 1 and 49. The important equations for normal SPR sensing are given in my older attached paper.^[1] These equations have all stood the test of peer review and high citations." T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Striking out sock contributions. It doesn't even seem like passing notability; let alone be long enough for DYK. Eumat114 (Message) 05:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the sockstrike, but it looks notable enough for an article to me. And it's well over minimum length for DYK. But it's not yet in shape to promote to article space. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not well versed in mathematics history, so...thanks for the cleanup. But is it "interesting" enough for a DYK (its interest seems to be quite technical...why am I even asking this when the draft is not in mainspace yet?) Facepalm Eumat114 (Message) 07:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm less sure about that. I tend to nominate new mathematics articles for DYK only when there is some chance that they or at least their hook can have some wider appeal, and I don't see it yet for this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Now an article (again): Peano surface. I have no particular intention of taking it to DYK but if someone else wants to I won't object. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Mathematics has moved recently and is now no longer under Springer but EMS. This is causing a problem in that it looks like all (or most, at any rate) of the links generated by Template:SpringerEOM are now broken. See Template talk:SpringerEOM#It looks as though EOM has left Springer for more details. The template is used an large number of articles, so it's unclear how big of a problem this will turn out to be. --RDBury (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the template to use the |title= rather than the |id= parameter this should fix most, but not all links. --Salix alba (talk): 11:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

Can someone create redirects to Homotopy Lie algebra and Homotopy associative algebra from pages titled "${\displaystyle L_{\infty }}$-algebras" and "${\displaystyle A_{\infty }}$-algebras", respectively? Most people don't call these objects Homotopy X algebras and instead use the shorthand version. I'm not sure how to do this. Wundzer (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I created L-infinity algebra and A-infinity algebra as redirects. I'm not sure how one one would type ${\displaystyle L_{\infty }}$ in the search box, but the spelled-out versions are clear enough and used in places like nLab. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! For your question, I know the A-infinity operad uses an ∞ in the title on the page, but when you search for it, they use your format. I think the big thing I care about is being able to type in "A infinity algebra" into a browser and get the correct wiki page. Wundzer (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Despite π is more commonly used, please do my request: Move the page Six nines in pi to Six nines in π over redirect. 78.190.25.41 (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You can use the WP:Move request process on the talk page of the article in question if you believe the title should change. --Izno (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback is welcome at Talk:Markov chain#Potential split. In addressing the {{Very long}} template on Markov chain that's been there since February 2017, I believe we need a split and articles with clear focuses on DTMCs, CTMCs or Markovity. — Bilorv (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm working on improving the sourcing of Numerical digit. there's a lot of interesting history in that article that was largely unsourced. While I found some sources and finding some claims that I'm struggling to find sourcing for. I dropped a note on the article talk page, indicating may interest in looking for sourcing and asking for help, but I noticed and the first person to post on that talk page in eight years, so I'm posting this here to get a few more eyes on it.

My intention is to remove material that cannot be sourced.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've just removed a link from the Fanning disambiguation page to Sector (disambiguation)#Geometry because I didn't understand how that topic is related to "fanning", and couldn't find it explained at any of the targets. If anyone watching this project knows what the connection is and can add it back with a brief explanation, that would be most helpful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Something to do with Polyhedral complex#Fans maybe? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There is also the concept of fanning curves in Grassmannian manifolds, e.g., . Perhaps a more simplistic explanation is that a circular sector looks like the profile of a hand fan. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Any new thoughts on an old topic of discussion on WP:NACADEMIC notability? Discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics). Cheers Earthianyogi (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, an Articles for Creation reviewer here. I have read over my friend's draft of the Lifting the Exponent lemma, but because 1. I have little to no experience reviewing math articles and 2. I feel like there would be a conflict of interest if I accept an article written by my friend, I was wondering whether there were any AfC reviewers in WikiProject Math who are willing to take a look. I myself have looked over it, and in my opinion, it seems understandable and well-written, especially since this is my friend's first Wikipedia article. Thanks, GeneralPoxter (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a good start, at the very least! A few quick thoughts: first, within the last few decades sounds vague (more than 10 and less than 50? 70? years). Perhaps a phrasing like since the early 2000s would work better. Second, postings on the arXiv are not peer-reviewed and so are not considered reliable sources, except in unusual circumstances. It looks like there is a peer-reviewed paper, Heuberger and Mazzoli (2017), that could be cited but currently isn't. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Although the "lifting the exponent" name for this result may well be modern, essentially that result goes back at least as far as Gauss (see Disquisitiones Arithmeticae, article 87). Joseph Myers (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your suggestions. I have added the new details into the article. cstryn (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Pell's equation has been nominated for Good Article status. Although recent edits to the article and its nomination should be credited to Eumat114, I think I'm too involved (by contributing most of the solutions section in 2010 and the lead image in 2012) to review it myself. But if someone else here is willing to, that would be helpful. See Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Mathematics for the nomination (and the top of the same page for pointers to reviewing guides). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The "Transformations" section seems to be written more textbook-style than the rest, and it's sourced to somebody's Google Sites page. Other than that, I didn't see any major issues on a first reading. I hope to go through it more carefully soon. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I am currently on a project about Pell's equation and hence will have access to more sources. I'll sort that section out soon enough. Eumat114 (Message) 05:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Great! XOR'easter (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Should there be a section on the role of Pell's equation in some proofs of Matiyasevich's theorem, which laid Hilbert's 10th problem to rest? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Relatedly, why are the applications to Størmer's theorem and Archimedes' cattle problem tagged onto the end of a section on connections to continued fractions? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I made the bit about Størmer's theorem into its own subsection and trimmed that mention of Archimedes' cattle problem, since the text mentions it twice before then. XOR'easter (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I ran through a source check on the "Transformation" part. It appears that a large chunk of it is original research, and only a small part of it can be remotely related to sources. Some of the statements are worth keeping, under the "Generalized Pell's equation" section; however, much of it seems to be OR conducted by one (or more) mathematicians and is not worthy of inclusion. Eumat114 (Message) 14:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

So I'm gonna be WP:BOLD and remove the entire OR section while trying to source valuable content. Eumat114 (Message) 14:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, that section seems to have been added by Titus III back in 2009. They still appear to be an active editor, perhaps they could weigh in on whether this is their own research or whether there are sources for it. --JBL (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, I know it is not exactly OR but rather, the user sourced the content to what looks like somebody else’s OR. Good idea to ask. Eumat114 (Message) 01:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)