Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Main pageDiscussionContentAssessmentParticipantsResources

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)

As an update to this, there's now 13 citation needed tags left to take care of. 5 are specifically in the ascending and descending chain conditions section. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The first epoch of algebraic invariant theory says "an example, if a rigid yardstick is rotated, the coordinates (x₁, y₁, z₁) and (x₂, y₂, z₂) of its endpoints change ...". How is this related to the article but does not explicitly says about that example? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that line was just trying to explain what "invariant" means. I trimmed the notation, since we don't use it later. 10 {{citation needed}} tags remain. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Needed: a readable introduction to algebraic invariant theory, and likewise for ascending/descending chain conditions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I've reached out to an algebraist colleage to ask for assistance. --JBL (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I've done the cn tag relating to Abstrakter Aufbau der Idealtheorie in algebraischen Zahl- und Funktionenkörpern, which was mentioned in the FAR. I have a question about one of the sentences in that paragraph. Full disclosure that I am not familiar with much abstract algebra. The sentence currently reads "...the Dedekind domains: integral domains that are Noetherian, 0- or 1-dimensional, and integrally closed in their quotient fields." and defines Dedekind domains.

This is what Page 13 of Noether, 1983 (collected papers) says (formatted slightly for brevity):

In Abstrakter Aufbau der Idealtheorie ... Noether gave the first characterization of the class of rings now known as Dedekind rings: the commutative rings in which factorization of ideals as products of prime ideals holds. She showed that the following conditions were necessary and sufficient for the validity of the prime ideal factorization theorem:
I – The ascending chain condition for ideals.; II – The descending chain condition modulo every non-zero ideal.; III – Existence of a unit element.; IV – Non-existence of zero divisors.; V –  Integral closure in the field of fractions.

This is what Page 96 of Rowe, 2021 says:

In [Noether 1927a], Emmy Noether was able to give a general proof of Dedekind’s fundamental theorem and its converse on the basis of five axioms for a Dedekind ring. In her earlier paper [Noether 1921b], “Theory of Ideals in Ring Domains,” she introduced a general concept for rings that merely had to satisfy one axiom: the ascending chain condition. This acc now became Axiom 1 in [Noether 1927a] and its counterpart, the descending chain condition (dcc), was formulated as Axiom 2. She had not, however, explicitly stated that the ring R must possess an identity element for multiplication. Pavel Urysohn brought this oversight to her attention in 1923, and so she introduced this as Axiom 3, while pointing out that Urysohn had alerted her to it [Noether 1927a, 494]. Axiom 4 further stipulates that the ring must have no zero divisors. Finally, Axiom 5 introduces the decisive condition that the ring R must be algebraically closed in its associated quotient field (i.e. the smallest field that contains R). These are the five axioms for a Dedekind ring found in textbooks today.

I wanted to change it to something like "... Dedekind domains. Noether showed that five conditions were necessary for this to be valid: the rings have to satisfy the ascending and descending chain conditions, they must possess a unit element, but no zero divisors, and they must be integrally closed in their associated quotient fields." but I was worried it was either wrong or redundant. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Sgubaldo (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The current version is heavy on modern terminology. I suggest "the ideals have unique factorization into prime ideals (now called Dedekind domains). Noether showed that these rings were characterized by five conditions: they must satisfy the ascending and descending chain conditions, they must possess a unit element but no zero divisors, and they must be integrally closed in their associated fields of fractions." + appropriate wikilinks. --JBL (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Update: citation needed tags are down to 5. Per XOR'easter's message above, two are in the the algebraic invariant theory section and two are under the acc and dcc section. The algebraic invariant theory section, or perhaps both, could do with a better introduction. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Locally Recoverable Codes

Recently, I published my first Wikipedia page about Locally Recoverable Codes, which are linear codes from a family of error correction codes, and it is still an orphan article. If someone can help improve this, I would highly appreciate it. Yaroslav-Marta (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you expand the article slightly with a section built out of the first 5 references. It might be called "Overview" (before Definition) or "Relation to error correction codes" (just after Definition). In this section set the context. One sentence for the orients general readers on what an error correction code is and then more content how this article relates to error correction codes. Especially look for related error correction code topics which have articles. Then go into those articles and link this one in See Also or better in an appropriate sentence with a ref in the other article. Presto not an orphan. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Yaroslav-Marta (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the title and some capitalization per our conventions; I haven't made any substantive edits to the article. --Trovatore (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Yaroslav-Marta (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yaroslav-Marta: I see we have an article titled locally decodable code. I can't immediately tell whether this is the same thing (in which case the articles should be merged), or a closely related topic, in which case you might be able to de-orphanize yours by linking from there. --Trovatore (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a different type of codes, but I might refer my article from it I think. Yaroslav-Marta (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Yaroslav-Marta! Nice job with the article. For further improvement, please see the Manual of Style guidance on direct speach use: MOS:WE & MOS:YOU. For example, "Observe that we constructed an optimal LRC;" at the end of the Example of Tamo–Barg construction section could be better said in passive voice as "The constructed LRC is optimal;". If you want to show some kind a proof, you might add "because ...(a reference to the criterion of optimality)", or say something like "It can be shown the LRC obtained is optimal" and then follow with a proof. --CiaPan (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't take MOS:WE too strictly in the context of mathematics articles. As mentioned there, the so-called "author's we" is used extensively in mathematical and other technical writing, and is generally fine (though is certainly not required). –jacobolus (t) 19:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone changed the article's title from "Locally Recoverable Codes", which is incorrect under WP:MOS, to "Locally recoverable code", which conforms to WP:MOS. I fixed three links from other articles so that they link to the correct title, and I deleted the "orphan" tag. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Scope of List of theorems

I raised some questions at Talk:List of theorems#Scope of this list last month. There haven't been any comments there, but I suspect not many people watch that page. Thus, I'm drawing attention to those questions here in the hope that this is where more people with an interest in that list can be found. Joseph Myers (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

History of representation theory

If anyone here wants to contribute to this new stub, please do! Geometry guy 01:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for opinion on edit to List of Mersenne primes

On 3 November, I made two edits Special:Diff/1255182695 and Special:Diff/1255197206 which were promptly reverted Special:Diff/1255250737 by Szelma W (talk · contribs). On 5 November, I created Talk:List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers#Recent reversion - is anything salvageable? to discuss the matter, as the revert's edit summary "It was better" didn't really give me a lot to go on.

The problem is, that editor normally edits about once a week with occasional longer gaps, but it's approaching 3 weeks now and they haven't been around to expand on those words. That in itself is not grounds for me to take offence; presumably their Real Life got busy and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not compulsory.

But I'd like to discuss it with someone before just un-reverting. Is anyone up to having a look at those edits (particularly the larger second one) and their justification on the talk page, and expressing an opinion? Note that this is not the usual after-lengthy-debate request for a 3rd opinion; in this case there has been almost no debate and there are no hurt feelings to worry about. You're free to make your own edit in lieu of any of the available versions, or give me some advice or whatever you like. I just don't trust my own judgment on what's an improvement in this particular case.

Thank you very much!

(I'm sure that re-reading my own edit after three weeks, I'll find something to improve, but I've avoided doing that so far since adding a third version to the discussion is of no use until there's a discussion to add it to.) 97.102.205.224 (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

One question from me: why would you break the whole paragraph into several pieces? For example, the first paragraph is meant to be a basic explanation of the background of the Mersenne primes and perfect numbers briefly, with the target started for the audience who did not understand anything about those classes of numbers; the second one is meant to the next step advanced level to understand more about the relationship between those numbers. Breaking them up into several paragraphs, just like you did in your edits, was meant to be each paragraph with overlapping topics between two classes as in the second paragraph you wrote about the perfect numbers and Euler proved the relationship between Mersenne primes and even perfect numbers, with this and that and this and that ... Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: Thank you for the feedback! I was trying to get "one idea per paragraph". It used to be that the first paragraph talked about Mersenne primes, then started talking about perfect numbers. The second paragraph kept talking about even perfect numbers. I re-broke it so all the prime talk was in the first paragraph, and all the (even) perfect number information was in the second. This seemed (and still seems) better organized to me. (Thus my comment on the talk page "note the paragraph break in place of 'Meanwhile'.")

Once I started down this path, I tried to have topic-focused paragraphs, with a paragraph break where there was a change of focus:

1. Mersenne primes
2. (Even) Perfect numbers and the Euclid–Euler theorem
3. Odd perfect numbers (open problem)
4. Infinitiude (open problem)
5. Source of values in the table
6. Tentative numbering of 49–52

As I wrote in the edit summary, "Seriously rework lead to keep each paragraph focused on one idea. "

I'm trying to open a topic, say something about it, and then close the topic for the benefit of a lay reader who can't keep too many new (to them) ideas in their head at once. There are links between paragraphs, but they're weaker than the links within paragraphs. I also tried to order things so links between paragraphs were short but in logical order. Thus, I moved discussion of odd perfect numbers to immediately after the paragraph about even perfect numbers, pushing the infinitude issue down a little. The latter is more coupled to the list itself and the mechanics of search efforts, while new paragraphs 2 and 3 answer the question implied by the article title: "why is the list of Mersenne primes and the list of perfect numbers the same list?"

I feel that's an important question to give a clear answer to, and that clarity is served by separating the odd perfect number discussion from the infinitude question.

I'm quite interested in this discussion. To me, the reorganization is Obviously Better, and the point of the edit comment was mostly to draw other editors' attention to that over bikeshedding potential minor wording issues that could be fixed easily enough.

If it's not obvious to you, I have something to learn. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The article List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers has featured-list status, following the criteria of WP:FLCR. Per WP:TECHNICAL, they are quick summaries to make the (non-mathematics) readers understand, so you don't have to write an over-detailed explanation. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: And I'm not trying to add details. I added no information, just reordered and regrouped what was already there. A second worry I had was that without a clear focus, the more open-ended style of the article before I edited it it would tempt an editor to add more detail. One of my goals in having discussion of a point end after its paragraph is to reduce the temptation to elaborate. The two critical points I think the article must cover are:

• how the list was made, and the prospects for its extension, and
• why the two lists are the same list.

If you see extraneous fluff that doesn't contribute to those points, I'm happy to delete it.

Would you mind if I copied & migrated this discussion to the article talk page? I think we will eventually want it archived there. (One way to agree is to do it yourself, of course.) 97.102.205.224 (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject RS guideline

Is there a dedicated page for WP:WPM's guidelines on reliable sources?

I came across Pairing function which heavily cites MathWorld - I am guessing the reason the page has been littered with {{vfn}}s wherever MathWorld is cited is due to MathWorld's unverifiability? I see there were discussions on similar topics back in 2012. (See also.) I'm sure many more have occured before and since. I've also seen discussions on reliability of math.stackexchange and mathoverflow citations.

I understand that the material in such a 'MathRS' page risks repeating what is better written elsewhere. However, it seems it would be worthwhile to collect relevant pages, especially if they are presented in a tailored fashion for this WikiProject. Tule-hog (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I was looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Reference_resources, where it says MathWorld is to be treated as a reliable source. I will remove the {{vfn}} from Pairing function where I can confirm the validity of the citation. Tule-hog (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That page is very old. I would definitely NOT trust MathWorld on terminology and would look for a better source than it for everything else.

The other advice I would give is to avoid mathematics journals that are not indexed by MathSciNet or zbMATH, and to treat arXiv preprints as self-published sources rather than reliably peer-reviewed. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I made an attempt to express a more up-to-date consensus in this advice page. XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Attitude (psychology)#Requested move 23 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Attitude (psychology)#Requested move 23 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Portals

User:Nerd271 is edit-warring to add the mathematics portal (which I consider to be totally useless noise; for instance its "did you know" entries have not been updated for many years) to articles including Noam Elkies, Hilbert's fifth problem, and Green–Tao theorem. I note that the portal is also linked from hundreds of other articles; I think it should be removed en masse, or at best kept only on the articles on major subfields of mathematics. Additional opinions welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein - Hmmm. So we have another portal enthusiast. Hmmm. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

We do, and I see that development as positive. Wikipedians are divided on the merits of portals: several discussions have closed with substantial arguments for and against them but no consensus to remove them. A 2019 exercise in which you played a substantial role deleted most of our portals, hopefully keeping the better ones. Much of this portal's content rotates automatically. It would be useful for an expert to update its pools of source material. However, mathematics is not a particularly fast-moving field. It is not obvious that omitting recent developments (which would appear only occasionally) justifies unlinking the whole portal to prevent its discovery. Certes (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Accusing me "edit-warring" is a bit of a stretch. I merely disagreed with David Eppstein and left it as that. There was no hostility on my part. But looking into the histories of those pages, you could see that Eppstein was rather hostile. Navigational panes and portals help our readers. Please see Wikipedia:Portal. Nerd271 (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

You disagreed and restored your edit two more times, failing to follow WP:BRD. That is edit-warring.

Portals are a decrepit and unmaintained relic of the earliest years of Wikipedia. They should go. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That's an opinion of yours. I happen to disagree. I was just editing as normal. You boldly reverted me. But I was not convinced by your reasoning, so I reverted back. No hard feelings. You reverted me with comments in all caps. In response, I reverted you in return only on one page to avoid escalation. I don't think you can sensibly accuse me of edit-warring here. Besides, there is such a thing as BRD Misuse. You have the right to be bold and to disagree with other editors. But this behavior is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Anyway, there is no need to be so hostile to the point of dropping a threat on someone else's talk page. Consider using one of the relevant talk pages. We can bring in other opinions. Nerd271 (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't noticed that this very discussion is one that I started, on this topic, on a relevant talk page? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the pages where you reverted me. They seem more relevant. One of them is sufficient. We can request a third opinion on there, too. Nerd271 (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is broader than individual pages. That's why I started a discussion here instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Is anyone maintaining Portal:Mathematics? It does average about 300 daily page views, so at least some readers are winding up there, though it's not clear to me what those readers are looking for or what they need. Do people visit that page multiple times or are these one-off events? Are readers arriving there from Wikipedia:Contents/Portals (linked from the main page), from the portal links in various article see also sections, from the portal links in {{WikiProject Mathematics}} which appears on many talk pages, from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, or from somewhere else?

It seems like a mistake to me to link this portal from every mathematics article. Looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Portal:Mathematics, I think such links should be removed from at least the vast majority of the articles there. The link in the WPM template is already quite enough marketing for this page IMO.

I can't see the relevance to Noam Elkies, to take the example here. David Eppstein's idea of linking it from a handful of articles (perhaps Mathematics, Geometry, Calculus, or the like) seems like a plausible compromise. –jacobolus (t) 05:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Codenominator Function

I am requesting a review of this draft. It needs at least one more reliable source, but my question has to do with whether the topic is notable and the draft should be developed further. I'm a chemist, not a mathematician, and I know enough mathematics to know that a mathematician should review this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The one reference, a 2022 paper, is the only hit for "codenominator" in MathSciNet. There are more hits in Google Scholar but they appear unrelated. The only citation to the source in Google Scholar is by the same authors. I think the source is reliable, but with only one primary source, WP:TOOSOON to be notable, regardless of its mathematical content. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

balance puzzle

may someone be so kind to look at my comments in the talk page? thanks. 151.29.39.54 (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 17:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)