Category talk:Mathematics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The main page for discussing math-related issues on Wikipedia is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.

[edit] Archive

[edit] Integrating LaTeX

Is it possible to allow an integration of LaTeX code and compiling? Or at least to require that in text math symbols be typed with the existing math syntax? wckronholm 18:19 8 Aug 2005(UTC)

Huh? Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 10:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too many items in the major categories?

Can we try to put as few things as possible in major categories? That way Category:Mathematics won't be gummed up with as many things that fit better in subcategories. In particular, if we can put something into a subcategory, we don't need to put it in Category:Mathematics as well.

The List of mathematical topics, with its sublists, are the fastest and probably most complete way to flesh out the Category:Mathematics structure, if there are those interested in helping to do so.

[edit] Lamé's Special Quartic

The wikilink Lam�'s Special Quartic looks ugly and goes to a page that says that there is no such article. I don't know how to fix this. - ReiVaX 19:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, a Google search for the phrase "special quartic" brings up 5 pages of results. None of the occurrences I saw were preceded by anything like "Lame's". I'm not much of a mathematician. Does "Lame's Special Quartic" even exist?

Not only that, the article shows up as "Lam%E9%27s_Special_Quartic" (with no hyperlink!) in search results and even in at least one Category, although I can't remember which one and now can't I find it again! - dcljr 04:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why nobody fix the link of the "Lamé's Special Quartic"? I don't how to fix it.

It seems it's not possible to fix it with the possibilities of a normal user or even an admin - there seems to be an article in the database, but due to the bad title it isn't accessible, it only shows its existance in the category. I have put a note on Meta:Non-development tasks for developers, so someone with more direct database access can take a look into it. andy 21:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Logic

See Talk:Mathematics#Logic.

Brianjd 05:28, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

[edit] Calculus/Algebra/Arithmetic

Why isn't there category of calculus? Integration seems lacking too. I'd make it if I was confident in my knowledge, but I'm not..

I think there should be a category of calculus, with differentiation ad integration under it. I think that arithmetic should be under algebra (it is now listed with algebra under mathematics).

Brianjd 05:15, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

No, my mistake. Thanks for the reply though. There is a category on Mathematical analysis, under which you can find Calculus.

[edit] Don't delete

Please don't arbitrarily delete the discussion on talk pages. If the page is getting extremely long, then you can justifiably archive old discussion (this page doesn't need it). See Wikipedia:Talk page#Standards and conventions of writing and layout. - dcljr 22:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't "extremely precise vocabulary and grammar" sound better than "extremely precisely defined vocabulary and grammar"?

[edit] Change first sentence

I would like to see the first sentence of this article changed from,

Mathematics is commonly defined as the study of patterns of structure, change, and space; more informally, one might say it is the study of 'figures and numbers'.

To something like,

Mathematics is commonly regarded as the study of numbers and computation. In fact, mathematics is more rich than that: formally, it is the study of relations, abstract structure, and space.

I'd also like to see the rest of the text of the first paragraph trimmed down, or moved to another paragraph. The first paragraph should appeal to the average reader. This change would also apply to the article Mathematics The points addressed by this change are:

I don't want to scare people away by the first sentence of this article. Though I know we all agree that defining mathematics as the study of numbers is wrong, it is nevertheless what people will be looking for when the visit the page on mathematics.
If people want a formal definition of mathematics, they can read further down. Move the line starting 'In the formalist view' to a new paragraph.
IMHO, the first word in any formal definition of mathematics should be 'relations'. Though I guess 'abstract structures' is good too.

Discussion of this topic already exists, at Talk:Mathematics#Common_definition_of and Talk:Mathematics#General_intro

-- Sean Kelly 17:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I put my proposed change at User:Sean Kelly/Mathematics. Comments appreciated. -- Sean Kelly 09:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Extension of language"??

I have deleted a POV assertion that mathematics may be seen as an extension of natural language. It doesn't say which particular view in the philosophy of mathematics holds that, nor mention that it could be disagreed with by many (maybe most?) informed people. I've never understood why people say things to the effect that "mathematics is a language" or the like. Mathematics, like any other field, has technical jargon, but nobody says "chemistry is a language" or "meteorology is a language", and as far as I can see, there is no more reason to say that about mathematics than about those fields. Michael Hardy 23:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. In the purest sense, you could term Mathematics as the study of symbols and rules to manipulate them, and in the practical sense you could define it as an invention to model relationships, but "language" is stretching. Dennis 17:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the purest sense, you could term Mathematics as the study of symbols and rules to manipulate them

I completely disagree with the above. Few if any mathematicians think of what they do as the study of symbols and rules to manipulate them, and they probably wouldn't be interested in it if it were. Those symbols and rules are merely a means; they are not the subject matter. Michael Hardy 21:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Duplication of effort

It occurs to me that the WP entries in the mathematics category have a high degree of overlap with the material that can be found on Mathworld. It seems that while WP on average does a better job in the textual descriptions, mathworld seems to consistently provide more rigorous derivations and references. For example, compare the two "Law of Cosines" pages; Law of Cosines and [1]. At the very least, we could adopt their Taxonomy of subjects and provide external link the analogous Mathworld page for additional research. Dennis 18:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with the word "consistently". Law of cosines was terribly written when you posted here, and I've fixed it, although certainly much more could be added (including a proof and some examples). I think in the lower-division undergraduage subjects (about through second-year calculus, and including a certain amount of linear algebra) Wikipedia articles are often fairly clumsily written, but in more advanced topics Wikipedia is often better than Mathworld. Michael Hardy 21:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And now I've put law of cosines back where it was before it got vandalized on December 13th by an anonymous user. It's a fairly good article. Michael Hardy 21:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New Definition

I don't know, I felt like this definition of mathematics was a little better than what's there now. --Sean Kelly 23:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for "Randomness" and "Random numbers"?

Please see my remarks in Category talk:Randomness about the usefulness of having both that category and Category:Random numbers. Thanks. - dcljr 06:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical journals or Mathematics journals?

I propose that these two subcategories be merged. But under which name and under what letter? -- Saaska 09:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi from the Geography category

Hi everyone, I'm working on the portal at Category:Geography. We and a few other main categories have decided to merge the category page into the portal so that the user is greeted with a more intersting first page. You may wish to look at that page and see if there's anything you want to incorporate. We should probably all aim to have similar designs for consistency. Cheers, --komencanto 13:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's a good idea. We should have this built into the software. Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 09:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of adding that subject bar? I think it's less attractive than just having them like on the front page. I might change it back. --komencanto 08:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not a subject bar, it's a title bar. Integrating the two saves some valuable space allowing anyone who browses here to immediatly see the definition and the featured article. And what's with that text? It's quite obvious the portal has been integrated, Wikipedia is always under development and I think most people can figure out that this is a great place to meet likeminded people. Cheers, --R.Koot 12:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was an edit conflict. I am happy the fat bold text is gone. Oleg Alexandrov 12:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The collaboraion of the week is a template, because that's how the portal is designed. Every frame is a template. --R.Koot 12:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formalism should not be presented as the default

I added a sentence to the header to address this. --Trovatore 12:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If you include realism you should also include intuitionism, this would make the introduction too long, however. That why there is a link to philosophy of mathematics. You might have a case when you say that formalist should not be presened also, but I believe this is how the majority of mathematicians look at mathematics. For me the most important purpose of this sentence is that makes clear to a laymen that mathematics is not about calculations but more about proofs. --R.Koot 14:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Not so sure about the majority of mathematicians. It'd probably depend strongly on how you word the survey question, since I'm pretty sure most non-logician mathematicians mostly just don't spend much time on the issue. But in any case realism is a mainstream school; I really don't see intuitionism that way, though I do find it interesting, both philosophically and mathematically. --Trovatore 18:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links to other categories

They look crap. The underlining on the first letter doesn't line up with the underlining on the rest of the word. Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 05:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

They do over here (SuSE + Firefox) --R.Koot 12:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

WinXP + IE. It works fine now! Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 03:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

Over the past few days efforts have been made to 1- merge the portal pages of the 8 main-page subjects with their category pages, and 2- make them consistent with each others. Before making significant layout changes please discuss it so the 8 pages remain consistent. Elfguy 19:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There should be a way of storing the formatting and content separately to make changes easier, to save space and to avoid accidentally introducing inconsistencies (particularly with new users). Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 03:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

In any case, we need a proper place to discuss this. We can't have it spread out over 8 category talk pages. Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 03:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Why not make the links at the top into a template? Brian j d | Why restrict HTML? | 03:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. Elfguy 13:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the week

What exactly does "This month's collaboration of the week" mean? Is it changed every week, or every month?

[edit] King James????

This page was about King James IV and I until about 6:11 PM PST on Monday 9/19/05. I was about to revert it back but somebody did so before I got the chance to. Anyways, the article that was here had an actual photograph for King James IV and I, who died in the 17th century. What happened? Zelmerszoetrop

Vandalism. (Again...) --R.Koot 17:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Category for: Category Theory or Topos Theory

I think Category Theory should be listed in the Mathematics categories at the portal. helohe 13:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

There's already a Category:Category theory (note capitalization!). I have no objection to your adding it to the portal. There's a bunch of others that should probably go in as well. --Trovatore 18:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Fond of learning"

can anyone breakdown the ethymology of mathematics (the greekword) and explainme how it becomes "fond of learning" ? I appreciate the feedback. -- (drini's page|☎) 20:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Did you know?"

What are the conventions on changing this? I was considering putting one relating to Eulers Formula however I thought it would be best to ask as I am still new Robbjedi 23:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

My experience suggests that if there isn't an obvious message telling you how to change it, do what you like. Brian Jason Drake 08:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Rydberg formula

I'm sorry, but what does the Rydberg formula have to do with mathematics? Maybe someone can come up with a more suitable picture for this category? Aucaman 07:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Be bold! That page does not belong in this category and has already been moved. Brian Jason Drake 06:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not adept at editing pages yet, but could someone replace the picture. The Rydberg formula is not mathematics. Perhaps something from Euclid's elements? CraigDesjardins

I think that this formula should be categorized as both Physics and Mathematics.

--Meno25 02:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page fix

Could someone with better skills than me please fix the main category page so that most of the bar that should be on the right-hand side isn't underneath? Tompw 00:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The navigation bar...

A certain someone wants the Math navigation stuff to point to point to the portals. We will all just learn to skip over it or use our back button. For now. -- Fplay 20:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the navigation bar is no longer helpful, as the portals were forked from the categories, so I will now remove it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

We could have {{catbar}} in, like the rest of the big 10, but it is so obvious I will wait for someone else to do so. -- Fplay 00:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. But would you please explain why the catbar does have links to other things than categories? That is to say, I will of course understand why somebody would like to have a navigation tools between categories, but why would one want to link to totally unrelated topics like the almanach, FAQs, lists, overviews, etc. I don't argue those are bad pages, but I don't know if they are relevant to be in a category. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categorisation

Why did you make this category part of the Top 10 category but with an inicial space:

[[Category:Top 10| Mathematics]]

It doesn't look so good to me, mainly because it isn't sorted in the M block but instead, in a no initial block. jοτομικρόν | Talk 13:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Category:Top 10, you can see that using the space means that the categories sort alphabetically without the large capital letters. I didn't implement this, but I like the idea. I've changed it back. If you disagree, please discuss on the Category talk page for Top 10. Carcharoth 10:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish link

An anon recently changed the Spanish link to es:Categoría:Matemática from es:Categoría:Matemáticas, or perhaps the other way around. It seems that both categories exist and are populated. Would someone whose Spanish is better than mine like to go tell them? I don't know how they handle these things over there; I think things like {{cfm}} are set up language-by-language. --Trovatore 14:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like es:Categoría:Matemática was created just today, by one es:Usuario:Ingenioso Hidalgo, who then took it upon himself to go around recatting over a hundred articles, then apparently got tired. Unless this was discussed somewhere this doesn't strike me as good behavior; someone should let them know. I don't know if they have any equivalent to WikiProject Mathematics. --Trovatore 15:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/t/Category_talk%7EMathematics_e91c.html"