Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

I created Draft:Pseudomonad, but I noticed that Pseudomonad is currently a disambiguation page, so should I rename it to Draft:Pseudomonad (Category theory) or Draft:Pseudo-monad? (Which is better?) By the way, should I also post this question on WT:MICRO?--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I think Draft:Pseudomonad (Category theory) would be the best approach and then update the DAB page for the new entry. Pseudo-monad doesn't seem like a common spelling. If you go this way, then nothing needs to be changed on the microbiology side. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mark viking: Clearly "Pseudomonad (Category theory)" would be incorrect under WP:MOS because of the capitalization of the "C". Michael Hardy (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

If you're doing parenthetical disambiguation, it should definitely be Pseudomonad (category theory) . --JBL (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, "pseudomonad (category theory)" is much more clear. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for teaching me about the draft title. Since there is already a DAB page, I will send a request to move the draft without creating a redirect.--SilverMatsu (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

New title:Draft:Pseudomonad (category theory) --SilverMatsu (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

By the way, is there a connection between Pseudomonad and Doctrine (mathematics)?--SilverMatsu (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

A doctrine is a kind of pseudomonad. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 12:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I added Pseudomonad to the section of See also in Doctrine (mathematics).--SilverMatsu (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm having what I think is turning into a bit of a conflict with @Bert Niehaus. Since that user is an academic in mathematics and since the controversy revolves around the addition of ~bachelor-level material to the article Normal distribution, I though I would ask for third-party input here before going through general-purpose conflict resolution procedures.

In a nutshell: Bert Niehaus insists on adding material to the article which — in my opinion — isn't improving it. This started with a batch of objectively clumsy edits, which I reverted. The reason why I'm saying these edits were "objectively clumsy" is that they created a duplicated section, contained grammatical errors, were unsourced and could legitimately be called "OR" (although I dislike the term). I reached to Bert Niehaus on their talk page to explain why I reverted their edits.

This started a lengthy discussion, both on Bert Niehaus' talk page and on the article talk page. Throughout this discussion, I had the impression of repeating the same thing over and over again, namely:

Wikipedia is a not a textbook; in an article such as "Normal distribution", we should simply give the power series expansion of the CDF of the normal distribution with a reference to a source where it is derived, rather than explain in detail how it is derived on the page. We can mention that it is readily obtained by integrating the power series expansion of the PDF term by term, but there is no need to explain in detail why that can be done.

I stand behind that opinion, especially since in my view a detailed argument would only be helpful to a very small number of readers (before having taken a course in complex analysis, one cannot really understand it; and after having taken such a course, it becomes somewhat trivial; so basically the details of the derivation are only going to be useful to a few math students — when the article "Normal distribution" should be aimed at a very large audience).

During this discussion, Bert Niehaus kept making batches of edits to the article — presumably in good-faith, but without really taking into account what I was saying (or perhaps not understand it, since in their latest edits they added a reference to support a notion [uniform convergence] rather than a statement). Also, I'm presuming good-faith here, but having in mind that I was asking Bert Niehaus to slow down, some of these edits did feel like they could have been trolling (e.g, this edit to the lead).

The current situation on my side is this: I am done talking with that use and do not wish to invest any more time in this. But I also do not think their edits are improving the article. So I am not sure what to do: should I just revert everything mechanically until that user gives up? Or ask for third-party input for edit warring?

14:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC) Malparti (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't offer much advice on the best course of action for how you should proceed. But many probability wikipages, especially those for particular distributions, are pretty unwieldy and messy. So it's good to remove material if it is not well-attested to in standard sources like well-recognized probability and statistics textbooks, of which there are many. Anything like original research or original computations should absolutely be removed. Since these pages are so messy, even if the material were to appear somewhere in some random research paper, it is probably good to remove it.

Personally I'm not aware of any reason for interest in the Taylor series for the pdf or cdf of the normal distribution. And taking a quick look through this material, it doesn't seem like any (standard) sources for this have been put forward. So, unless I missed a reference, that means that all this material should be removed. And, regardless, any derivation or calculation details should certainly be removed. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

There are definitely some standard sources which include the Taylor series for the CDF, especially older sources mentioning that it is (or used to be) a reasonable way to calculate for small values of ⁠${\displaystyle x}$⁠ (but converges impractically slowly for large ⁠${\displaystyle x}$⁠). It's also in references like Abramowitz & Stegun. I'm not necessarily opposed to including the Taylor series in articles about this or any other special function, as a basic reference topic. But I don't think we should belabor the point, or need a lot of derivation, justification, or explanation, all of which seems like it quickly gets off topic. –jacobolus (t) 23:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The formula for the distribution seems potentially useful, but also like an easy exercise. Given the Taylor series for ${\displaystyle e^{x}}$, it's not hard to find the formula for ${\displaystyle e^{-x^{2}}}$, and from there to get the series for ${\displaystyle \int e^{-x^{2}}dx}$. A section about the Taylor series probably would help statisticians and other such readers, but the benefit would be marginal, and it could make the article more difficult for lay readers. The Boolean^_Talk 21:04, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Gumshoe2 and @The Boolean for your replies, and thanks @Jacobolus @Quantling for your contributions on the article and its talk page. Malparti (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I decided to put some time into tidying up the Bayes' theorem article, and I've gotten down to the § Genetics subsection. Does it seem overly long to anyone else? It really only discusses one genetic disorder. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Nice catch. That is just a random example of Bayes reasoning, nothing foundational about Bayes Theorem or genetics. It goes on way too long, and has undue weight in a general article about Bayes' theorem. I would cut the section way down or likely remove it altogether. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I chose the route of cutting it way down. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I have put a note at Talk:Distribution (mathematical analysis)#Splitting article suggesting a split. I don't know exactly what the split/fork would look like, but the current article strikes me as pretty useless to almost any likely audience, and so a separate, much more technical, article should be made to cabin most of the functional analysis bafflegab, while an earlier and more reader friendly version is restored. Opinions needed. @PatrickR2:, @Jacobolus:. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't necessarily have to be a split, but should definitely aim for accessibility to less-technical readers and more narrative context in at least the top few sections. The best bet is probably to start by looking for sources aimed at a broad audience with clear explanations. –jacobolus (t) 23:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I think this old revision, prior to the article being rewritten, is in many ways superior to the current article. But I am reluctant to do a wholesale revert, thus my suggestion of splitting. I just don't know what to do with all of the newer content. It seems like the sort of thing that would be better off in a separate article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the more technical side of things is covered in Spaces of test functions and distributions, which claims in its hatnote (outdatedly) that Distribution (mathematical analysis) covers "more basic information about distributions". So maybe this is already an adequate pair of titles for a split and we don't need a third title as well? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to point towards a solution. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I have reverted to an earlier version, with a few small edits for correctness and to link to Spaces of test functions and distributions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Some food for thought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33y9FMIvcWY. Nosferattus (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I have mentioned this before. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2025/Nov#DFT. If someone wants to improve the article by providing the preliminaries before starting the topic, improving the caption, and illustrations, go ahead. Don't forget to add reliable sources (books and journals) and never add up fishy stuff (original research). Look at the list of articles WP:GA/M and WP:FA#Mathematics if you want some samples for better structure. See WP:MTAU. See WP:BOLD. See WP:RS. See WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. See User:XOR'easter/So, you've decided to write about physics and/or mathematics on Wikipedia. See WP:NOR. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

That's where it was! I thought we had discussed this before (somewhat critically) but couldn't find the discussion in the archives because of the cryptic thread title. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I took the introductory text suggested in that discussion and worked it into the lede of Discrete Fourier transform, along with some other reorganization. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe reorganize all of them. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

All of what? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Everything. Illustrations and captions. Rewriting the definition to be less technical. Etc. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I moved the figures down from the lede to a place where they make more sense and get less in the way (particularly when browsing on mobile). Also, I brought over a new illustration from Fast Fourier transform that can probably be improved but is better for the lede than what was there before. I did some cleanup on the Discrete Fourier transform § Definition section, but I don't know how non-technical it can be made. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Fibrations of graphs was recently created by Vigna, largely copied from the author's website at . Copyright issues have been resolved, but the article could still use a review from an experienced math editor. I'm not experienced enough to evaluate whether the topic is original research or how much it overlaps with existing articles on similar topics. Thanks. Zeibgeist (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Unsourced in some sections. Try to reduce the technical jargon whenever possible, but it looks fine to me in the later sections. Probably see some more guidelines on Wikipedia, like WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, because of the writing style looks like scientific journals or books; for instance, Roy L. Adler and Brian Marcus define (right-) left-resolving maps (Definition 3.31) where is the "Definition 3.31" anyway, and what does that definition says?

This reminds me of Affine symmetric group, wherein the content is from the journal under the name WikiJournal of Science. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There's a clear reference in that phrase, and it's a vast book, so it is fundamental to add a precise reference to a definition, or the reader won't be able to find it without a lot of effort. Vigna (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

So you're saying Definition 3.31 is from that book? You can add some notes for more specific location on a page, right after the source. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There's no original research in the article. It tries to put together a large number of results in the field that are mostly uncorrelated because they were proved independently in different fields—IMHO, 99% value of an encyclopaedia of any kind. Otherwise, you can just read the articles and usually they will be more complete and accurate. Vigna (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

And try to avoid "we" or any similar first-person pronoun. See MOS:MATH#NOWE. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

According to MOS:WE, the author's we is an acceptable style. I'm not sure who wrote MOS:MATH#NOWE, but I don't think it reflects a consensus of Wikipedians (of math articles or more generally), and should probably be revised. –jacobolus (t) 16:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems like it's been there for a long time (added in 2005 by user:Mjb in special:diff/20575613), but from what I can tell it's just one person's preference/advice, with support from 1 or 2 other people, and there was almost immediate complaint on the talk page with several other editors disagreeing with this advice (but never changing the page to remove it). –jacobolus (t) 16:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Guilty as charged, although FWIW, Wikipedia was a bit more Wild West in those days. At the time, WP:BOLD inspired me to forego discussion and add prescriptive language, knowing that it would eventually be undone or dialed back if it was truly too controversial, especially in a MOS article which would be subject to a fair amount of passive review.

I do stand by the initial statement of fact, though: In contrast to the rest of Wikipedia, mathematics articles do tend to read somewhat jarringly like lectures, rife with violations of WP:NOTED and WP:YOU. It seems prudent to acknowledge this tension, and to encourage contributors to minimize their use of such clichés. (I was mainly reacting to the spate of articles, at the time, which were truly chock full of fluff, and issuing command after command to the reader, and/or which kept switching tone.)

Nowadays I'm more inclined to give some grace and tolerate some pedagogical clichés; adopting an encyclopedic, third-person tone shouldn't sacrifice clarity or usefulness, after all. To that end, although the fibrations of graphs article could benefit from some scrutiny—there are a few instances each of we, note that, and indeed which could be easily rephrased—I'd say overall it's fine. —mjb (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that articles should avoid straying into a chummy informal style.

But the author's we is often clearer and less awkward than replacing it with one or significantly rephrasing, and it is routinely used in mathematical and other technical documents, including in reference works. It isn't necessarily informal or unencyclopedic, and therefore shouldn't be banned.

I think we should generally keep our recommendations about tone/style away from absolutes, and leave judgment to editors, settling disputes case by case by consensus on local talk pages (or by other typical community processes). –jacobolus (t) 18:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Really? This is odd. For some reason, there should be a guideline in Wikipedia where any first-person pronoun should be avoided. I clearly forgot what the manual is. Time flies. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The justification for avoiding authorial we is apparently that Wikipedia is not a textbook, but that seems like a tenuous inference to me. The ways in which Wikipedia should not be textbook-like don't extend to expunging authorial we, as far as I can tell. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, we appear to going into the stylistic weeds a bit here, but as far as I can tell no one has raised any issues that would prevent the article from remaining in mainspace. I went ahead and marked the article as reviewed, but I'm happy to engage further if anyone has additional concerns. I also took the liberty of tagging with {{cleanup rewrite}}, since the style of writing throughout the article is definitely more typical of a textbook than the encyclopedic style used on Wikipedia. Additional cleanup work to improve the text would be appreciated. Zeibgeist (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Which is the correct article title: Cross's Theorem or Cross's theorem? Also, I couldn't find many papers Cross's theorem or Vecten's theorem to know which is the WP:Common name. And also, It's linked to the Gregorian calendar (2004), but this is the first time I've seen it in a Wikipedia mathematics article.--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

As per WP:TITLEFORMAT, "Cross's theorem" is correct. I have moved the page accordingly, and unlinked the 2004. — LucasBrown 06:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.--SilverMatsu (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Silvermatsu. Here is the source , where I once reverted my rhetorical question. And the article can have a WP:DYK: "did you know, that Cross's theorem was actually discovered by a UK student". Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

And here is another source , which raises a question whether it is reliable. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I see, it seems like the common name for this article should be Cross's theorem.--SilverMatsu (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

From reading the sources, saying it was discovered by a UK student is very misleading. It is like saying a student discovered limits or Pythagorean theorem. EulerianTrail (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Please add reliable sources. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

This article expanded on the concept of polyads, which are related to category theory. Later, an explanation of a different concept with the same name related to infrared spectroscopy was added. This article is a stub, but should it still be split into separate articles? I'm worried that if we split the article, each article might be moved to the draft space.--SilverMatsu (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should be about individual concepts, so different concepts that happen to have the same name should be covered in different articles. --JBL (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. — LucasBrown 01:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't know how to split the article, so this is helpful.--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Tagged as unsourced for 16 years, this was recently prodded and then deprodded. Please add reliable sources. Note that if you register for the Unref backlog drive, you can earn a Barnstar! Bearian (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this article involves a standard usage of terminology worthy of an article, so I think it should go through the deletion process. Ebony Jackson (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't find a single example in full-text search of academic papers (Google scholar) or various book corpora of "relational constructibility". Only several web pages at various wikis which are all cross-linked like: "Relation Construction, InterSciWiki"; "Relation Construction", PlanetMath; "Relation Construction", Semantic Web; "Relation Construction", Wikinfo; "Relation Construction", Wikiversity; "Relation Construction", Wikiversity Beta; "Relation Construction", Wikipedia. The phrase "relation construction" appears in various contexts, but I am not finding one used in this specific sense. The person who originally created this and presumably also the cross-linked pages, User:Jon Awbrey, has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing, with complaints also about original research. Can probably be safely deleted. –jacobolus (t) 18:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Mark viking:, who made an assertion that sources exist when unprodding. --JBL (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The assertion was:

Deprod--looks notable at first glance. A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows hundreds of hits in GScholar. Also see the lengthy article "relation construction" in Grokipedia with dozens of references cited

The "hundreds of hits in GScholar" are a wide range of unrelated uses. I didn't exhaustively read them, so it's plausible that this sense can be found, but I am not motivated to keep searching. The "Grokipedia" page is, predictably for an LLM, a mishmash of hallucinations, misunderstandings, and unrelated things incoherently synthesized. It includes such claims as "The framework of relation construction, as developed in resources like the OEIS Wiki, formalizes how relations interact and combine". Not really very encouraging. –jacobolus (t) 19:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all, for taking a look. At first glance, it looked like there were enough sources for this PROD to be controversial. Looking more deeply myself--while there are GScholar hits that are valid instances of relation construction in CS+ML, I wasn't able to find a secondary review that brought them together into a coherent topic. It would then be difficult to construct an article without synth. Composition of relations has some of what would be covered in a relation construction article, without the machine learning context. Given those facts, I'd be OK with deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Grokipedia should not be trusted for any purpose whatsoever, and this provides a nice example of one reason why. The OEIS wiki has a page called "relation construction"... which is just a copy of the Wikipedia article from 2006. This is just citogenesis with an LLM in the middle. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relation construction. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a discussion ongoing on whether to disambiguate the phrase, "Multiple identity". BD2412 T 21:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Not in my experience. (It's a pretty standard feature of algebraic structures that the uniqueness of the identity element follows directly from the existence of at least one identity element.) --JBL (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Symplectic form to the article Symplectic vector space has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8 § Symplectic form until a consensus is reached. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

In the article titled Distribution (mathematical analysis) we find this:

${\displaystyle \mathrm {D} (U)=\bigcup \nolimits _{i}\mathrm {D} _{K_{i}}}$

coded as \mathrm{D}(U) = \bigcup\nolimits_i \mathrm{D}_{K_i} .

If instead the code had been \mathrm{D}(U) = \bigcup_i \mathrm{D}_{K_i} ,

then it would be rendered as follows:

${\displaystyle \mathrm {D} (U)=\bigcup _{i}\mathrm {D} _{K_{i}}}$

Since this is in a "displayed" rather than "inline" setting, I would have used the latter form. This use of \nolimits occurs numerous times in this article. Are there reasons why the version with \nolimits is to be preferred? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for the notation in this article, but to me the current notation (that is, with \nolimits) looks neater. Somehow the dangling ${\displaystyle i}$ looks a bit weird and out of place in the standard displaystyle rendering... I guess whoever wrote the article must have had the same feeling.

Anyway, there is no semantic difference between the two notations so if the \nolimit variant is used consistently throughout the text, I guess MOS:VAR applies. Malparti (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Either one seems fine. Similarly, it should be fine if someone wanted to adopt the convention of writing integrals with an explicit \limits added in some article, so that they render like $${\displaystyle \int \limits _{a}^{b}f(x)\,dx.}$$ (This style is especially common in Russian sources, but also routinely found elsewhere, especially on chalkboards, hand-written notes, or pre-LaTeX publications.) –jacobolus (t) 23:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I sometimes use \limits with integrals when bounds require a complicated expression. Like this:

${\displaystyle {}\quad \int \limits _{x,y\,:\,0\,<\,x\,<\,y\,<\,1}f(x,y)\,d(x,y)}$

Michael Hardy (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Representation theory of the Lorentz group has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I put work into this earlier; I have no interest in doing more. The concerns listed in the GAR seem mostly orthogonal to the question of whether the article explains mathematics correctly and well. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Anyone can join the discussion here, Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Johnson solids/archive1. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

WP has articles relating to Dual Polygons and Dual Polyhedra, would something more general on Duality that included higher dimensions be appropriate?Naraht (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You mean like we already have in Duality (mathematics)? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

A concrete topic that we are missing is the historically first and one of the most important examples, polar duality on the sphere (between points and oriented great circles), which was introduced by Persian astronomer/mathematician Abu Nasr Mansur (a teacher of Al-Biruni) c. 1000 AD, in the form of the polar triangle of a spherical triangle (currently a redirect to a short section of Spherical trigonometry, but should also be a separate article). This later inspired the study of duality in the projective plane, etc. –jacobolus (t) 17:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I had not seen Duality (mathematics), however I will say that article is *incredibly* broad. It feels like making one article for all of the Springfields in the United States.Naraht (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

There is a short section Dual polyhedron § Dual polytopes and tessellations; the natural thing to do would be to add content there, and split if it ever became large enough to support that. (I see that Mgnbar wrote the same thing, just a couple minutes more quickly.) --JBL (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

There's also List of dualities. But Dual polytope is merely a section of Dual polyhedron. Perhaps you would be interested in adding material to that section? And if it becomes unwieldy, then splitting it off into its own article? Mgnbar (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

An editor has been adding material to Catalan's constant that include unsourced editorializations ("Using these series, calculating Catalan's constant is now about as fast as calculating Apéry's constant") and a "third formula" that, following the sources used for it, was found by someone with the same name as the editor (and is singled out from about 20 different formulas listed in OEIS). More eyes on the article would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)