Talk:Four-dimensional space

What is 4D about the animations shown in this article? They all are perfectly 3D.

I don't understand why some fancy 3D animations are included as an illustrations of fourth dimension in this article. These animations are perfectly 3D. They can very much exists and manufactured in 3D world. For example, the expanding and contracting cube (Tesseract?) shown as main image for this article. This can easily be manufactured with some elastic material. Inner cube when brought out expands and outer when cube pushed in shrinks. Could be a kids toy. Perfectly 3D example. Others animations also for that sake can be visualized in 3D world. Why we seeing them as 4D?

Fourth dimension is something which we cannot even sense being we as 3D life. For example, insects have compound eyes so can sense only shades of light. Cannot see 3D objects. Their other sensors are also too weak to sense 3D world. In the same way we cannot imagine 4D world. We can, to some extent, think of time as 4th dimension. But cannot "see" it. Scientifically speaking 4th dimension is simply impossible to see by lives living in 3D.

Some people show weird images and animations as 4th dimension. It's as funny as some sound systems are advertised as "8D" sound. Or some movies theatres (with water sprinkler and air blowers fit to the chairs) claim to give experience of 6D/7D/8D movies. It's sheer funny, but it's good there as it might be bringing them business. But Wikipedia article should not try to attract audience by showing some funny or fancy looking stuff in the name of knowledge of 4D/5D/6D etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.16.94.99 (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

You have a point, but, in fact, all of the images here are 2D. There is an implicit understanding, in all such images, that projections (from 3D to 2D or from 4D to 2D) are happening. Mgnbar (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mgnbar We see things as 3 Dimensional because we are 3 dimensional creatures so our eyes (which cannot comprehend 4D) sends the information as 3D so we can't really see things in the 4th dimension Danny (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how your post is meant as a response to my post. They seem unrelated. Mgnbar (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Technically, those animations are not 3D, they are flat – they are displayed as a mosaic of coloured pixels on a flat surface of your device's display. If you can see a three-dimensional objects there, it's a result of your imagination.

What concerns the appropriateness, your imagined elastic 3D toy would be a (model of) projection of a rotating 4D tesseract into 3D in the same way as this 2D image File:Cube subspace 3.png is a projection of a 3D cube into a 2D paper or LCD display.
In the case of a cube, reconstructing the intended 3D objects is done automatically thanks to an evolutionary adaptation of our brains, which is necessary for successful navigation in a 3D physical world with our 2D retinal receptors. In the case of a tesseract, however, we need to reconstruct two dimensions, which is beyond our everyday experience, hence beyond our intrinsic visualisation capabilities. As a result, a conscious, rational mental work is needed to reconstruct some 4D sub-elements of the object (its 3-dimensional hyper-sides, for example) and correlations between them (e.g., 2-dimensional 'edges', where those 'sides' touch each other).
So far, there's no way to present 3D images in Wikipedia (let alone 4D ones). Even techniques like stereoscopic pictures or anaglyphs make us 'see' 3D by presenting a separate 2D image to each eye, with a drawback of a necessary additional equipment. So, the only way to 'show' four-dimensional objects is to project them into 2D space. And with all the flaws of this approach, it is still a thousand times easier than describing the objects in words. --CiaPan (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mgnbar I accidentally tagged you sorry but what I am saying is that even if it was 3D we would understand it because we cannot understand 4D objects when we are 3D our self.Danny (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

They are three dimentional representations of what a 4D shape would look like if we could see it. OmegaNull2 (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. They are two-dimensional representations of what a 4d shape, projected into 3d, would look like if we could see it. The projection into 3d might be something like what a 4-dimensional being with a 3-dimensional retina could see. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If we were dolphins or bats using sonar we might be able to appreciate the 3-D projection better, for us the nearest 4D bit is somewhat obscured in the middle. NadVolum (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Weird question

Can the 4-D Hypercube be considered a Plutonic Solid? If so, does it transform in and out of being one? Like, you can't really define the location in spacetime of a Tesseract, so does that mean it both is and isn't one? Also, do 4D shapes have an inside? Or are they like a Mobius Strip. OmegaNull2 (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The regular 4-cube is a type of regular 4-polytope, the analog of Platonic solids in 4-dimensional space.

Minkowski spacetime is not Euclidean (it is called pseudo-Euclidean or sometimes more specifically Lorentzian), so the regular 4-cube does not really fit there: if one of the axis of your 4-cube is "timelike" and the other three are "spacelike", then you can't exchange a timelike and spacelike axis by reflection or rotation the way you could in Euclidean 4-space.

Some shapes embedded in 4-dimensional space are orientable, while others are not.

In the future, direct this type of question to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. –jacobolus (t) 03:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

(I’m assuming “Plutonic” is a typo of “Platonic”) The tesseract is not a platonic solid (platonic solids are, by definition, 3d), but it is a regular convex non-self-intersecting polychoron (the higher-dimensional equivalent of a platonic solid). For the 2nd question, in this article, the 4th dimension is of space, not time. For the 3rd question, 4d shapes do have an inside. It’s just harder to see, but think about a wireframe of a cube: the outer square “contains” the inside, and the smaller square ends the inside. Same for a 4d cube. Catzcute4 (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

The inside of the 4d hypercube is the set of all points (x,y,z,w) with 0 < x,y,z,w < 1. The boundary is the points where 0 ≤ x,y,z,w ≤ 1 and where at least one of these inequalities is an equality. It's easy to define if hard to visualize. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Can someone greenlight this edit?

 Courtesy link: Special:Diff/1257024307

This edit got removed because I "didn't provide a source" but there's no source to provide, and I think my edit is very simple and it explains itself, no source required. I'm not just stating a fact, I'm going through the logic of something and explaining it. My edit: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Four-dimensional_space&diff=prev&oldid=1257024307 Z53 INCOMING (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There are several issues. Your argument is hard to follow. (I can't follow it, and I have a Ph.D. in geometry. The average reader definitely won't follow it.) And the argument is not routine calculations or logic either. So a source is definitely needed. Moreover, the text is not encyclopedic in style, and there are several typographical errors. Your fellow editors would clean up the errors, if they felt that the substance of the text was really valuable. Mgnbar (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Z53 INCOMING: Indeed, going through the logic of something and explaining it is a schoolbook example of what we definitely cannot do on Wikipedia: wp:original research. See wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Ohh, so that's why wikipedia sucks! You aren't allowed to explain things. Thanks for the information, I'll stop wasting my time contributing here! Z53 INCOMING (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Z53 INCOMING: Without the original research boycot Wikipedia would likely be filled with trivia that is absolutely logically sound and perfectly correct, but in which, apart from the providers, nobody is really interested. You see, the reason why this particular policy was put in place and has become part of the design, is to make sure that the encyclopedia only harbours content that is sufficiently interesting, by virtue of demonstrably being backed by relevant wp:reliable sources. So I think it is exactly why Wikipedia managed to not suck . - DVdm (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it is certainly not the case that "you aren't allowed to explain things". Whether it seems like a "waste of your time" to contribute is a personal question. Everyone sometimes has their changes reverted or rewritten in a large project like this made by pseudonymous volunteer strangers, and the disagreement about this particular text is not intended to diminish or reject you as a person. I imagine you could make contributions valuable to readers if you stick with it and try to fit your contributions to Wikipedia norms, but whether you do is entirely up to you. It is the case that contributions should be backed by sources. –jacobolus (t) 23:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe it is right okay but it definitely comes under WP:OR without a source. Wikipedia isn't the place to publish original ideas. So sorry, no, it can't go in. NadVolum (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced it is ok. The substitution of "circle" for "disk" is a good change (the product of circle x circle is a 2d torus and we want either a 4d shape or its 3d boundary). But intuition in 4d geometry is so often misleading that it needs to be backed up with more rigorous calculations, not in evidence here: how do we know that these modes of rotation on a (hyper?)plane are described accurately and are the only modes available?

If it is intended to be a plane (as it says) and not a hyperplane, the analogous situation would be rotating a cylinder on a line, for which definitions are unclear (are you allowed to twist the cylinder when it touches the line at a point? are you allowed to do that with a sphere sitting on a plane?) and the system of rotations is already more complicated than described here (three different cases, when the point of contact is on the curved side, flat end-cap, or edge between the two, with different dimensions of motion, but all connected to each other). This complication in 3d is part of what makes me suspicious that the 4d description might be messier than was described in this diff.

Unrelated to this diff, I am suspicious that the names of these products are badly sourced and may fall under WP:NEO. If this material is not adequately sourced to be included here at all, it should not be expanded. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe Z53 INCOMING was describing rolling on a hyperplane. Personally I found the explanation quite confusing, as someone who has thought a decent amount about 4-dimensional shapes (at least compared to the general public), and I found it significantly clearer to just imagine in my own head how such objects might roll (entirely disregarding the explanation). After thinking about it for a while I could sort of figure out how my imagined rolling corresponded to Z53 INCOMING's text, but the text didn't help illuminate or clarify that for me. I'm not entirely sure who the explanations were intended for; I think they might be more suitable as a blog post or diary entry. It's possible something similar could be salvaged at the article here, but it's a very difficult task to describe 4-dimensional motion in a way that is accessible and useful. I think it would take a complete rewrite and quite a lot of care. –jacobolus (t) 23:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Even for a (bounded) cylinder rolling on a plane in 3d, you would like to say that it can only roll while sitting on its curved side and in a one-dimensional motion perpendicular to the axis of the cylinder, but you have to be careful with definitions to make that the only rolling motion. Coins are cylinders and it's common to spin them on their edges, with quite complicated rolling motions. I'm not sure what the 4d analogue would be of that coin-spinning motion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. If we imagine "rolling" to allow turning an object about a sharp edge or spinning it around a single point of contact there are certainly more cases to consider. –jacobolus (t) 23:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Animation fails standards

The animation of a tesseract would disturb some people. It doesn't meet accessibility guidelines of the style manual. I am not technically proficient enough to modify it so I ask another editor to do so. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images Humpster (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't flash and it is shorter than five seconds. What part of MOS:ANIMATION do you think it falls short of? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It loops.

https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Animations,_video,_and_audio_content Humpster (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be nothing about looping in that link. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

On the talk page it seems to be clarified, to the effect that unending looping GIF animations are not allowed. Mgnbar (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll try again to explain the concept:

On opening this article, the picture of a tesseract goes round-and-round, which is to say, it moves. This picture doesn't stop moving as long as it is on the screen. So it is said to be "continuous", which is to say "without interruption". This fact supports use of the word "a-nim-ation" which is wikipedia jargon for "things which move on a screen". [Note: This extraordinary phenomenon can only be seen by using devices more recent than 1987.]

.

To clarify, this "animation" is continuous, nonstop, unceasing, uninterrupted, unbroken, prolonged, extended, continued, constant, unfailing, unremitting, ceaseless, unending, continual, unlimited, unflagging, inexhaustible, boundless, persistent, relentless, round-the-clock, assiduous, remorseless, indefatigable, immortal, unwavering, unabated, diligent, unwearied, sedulous, eternal, untiring, unending, everlasting, incessant, interminable, unchanging, never-ending, undying, lingering, protracted, chronic, persistent, extended, drawn-out, overlong, sustained, steady, constant, sempiternal, and imperishable.

.

This animation is not sporadic, intermittent, spasmodic, or desultory. It is without end. It never stops. This tesseract goes round and round forever! That means it lasts longer than 5 seconds. Therefore, it doesn't comply with the MOS which says:

.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Animations which says:

"To be accessible, an animation (GIF – Graphics Interchange Format) should either:

Not exceed a duration of five seconds (which results in making it a purely decorative element)[12] or

Be equipped with control functions (stop, pause, play)[13]"

.

While you're reading, here's another difficult concept, "drive-by" de-tagging:

"You should not remove maintenance templates if any of the following apply:

You do not understand the issues raised by the template;

The issue has not yet been resolved;

There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue."

.

I have restored the tag in anticipation of your understanding. Humpster (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

If it stops, it cannot be used as an animation. I for one require more than five seconds to read an article like this, get to the animation, study, and understand it. The clear reading of the MOS is that looping GIFs with a loop length under five seconds are ok. This one loops in 3.4 seconds. And the claimed consensus on the MOS talk page does not appear to exist.

Your requested change would make the image LESS accessible, not more, and I reject it for that reason.

As for your request for my understanding: as I said, my understanding requires that I can actually view looping images rather than being prevented from viewing them by shutting down the loop. Please do not impede my understanding by putting obstacles in the way of viewing such loops. Having to re-press a play button every three seconds, and losing the smooth looping nature of the animation, is not an adequate substitute. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Did someone with accessibility problems complain about it, or are you pre-emptively acting on their behalf? I think we should use animation sparingly, but this seems like a somewhat imaginary problem. –jacobolus (t) 02:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is a real and legitimate problem that some people find looping images highly distracting and want to find some way to stop them. The problem is that Wikimedia provides us no way to accomodate both those people and the people who find looping images to be an informative part of articles. There are browser plugins to stop gifs looping, but Wikimedia has ranked efforts to provide this functionality directly as a low priority: see T85838 and T85840. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean: did someone complain about this specific image? The degree of distraction is going to depend substantially on the design of the animation. –jacobolus (t) 02:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

In the absence of a specific complaint of this particular image, in light of its length and utility in the page, I think it should be kept. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, put my name on it as complainant. Is that enough or do I fill out a form? The problem I raised is real, and it isn't rare.

A solution shouldn't be difficult, conceptually: "Click here to run the continuous animation." Surely a static thumbnail can be created and linked to Commons. Backing out of it is just as easy. Ergo, everyone is happy. Humpster (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Humphrey Tribble Mediawiki does not have a feature to start/stop animating an image when you click. Unfortunately (as far as I know) browsers don't have any built-in way to do this either. Maybe there are some browser extensions that can do it? Having the image not animated at all unless you click through to a separate page is a huge downgrade for people who might benefit from the animation, and in my opinion also an accessibility problem. Most readers will never realize there is an animation, and in this example the animation is essential to the image and without it the image is substantially ineffective.

Overall tooling around animations on the web, and in particular tools in browsers themselves, is quite bad, and as I mentioned above Mediawiki has not really put much if any effort into multimedia support. Which is really a bummer as animated and interactive diagrams can be extremely effective, but as you say it's also very helpful if they can be stopped from continuously animating. –jacobolus (t) 06:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess I've done the impossible. See my user page user:Humphrey Tribble and choose "Click here for continuously rotating teserract" (Note: I have used odd spelling to distinguish between my test and the real articles.) All the DRAFT preamble could be removed so it is a blank page other than the animation. Instead of "click here..." there would be a static image with a caption such as "Click to see it move". This solution isn't perfect but it works and should satisfy everyone. More experienced editors might be able to refine it. Humpster (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are getting at. That just shows a text link pointing at a different page, which is certainly no substitute for an animated image. –jacobolus (t) 19:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Humpster: it impedes understanding to put animations on separate pages or pop-ups. Doing so prevents them from being studied within the context of the article. Your request, to remove the image from the article and leave only a link to it, creates an accessibility barrier. It makes the combined meaning of the article text and animation less accessible.

What we would prefer is to have the animation remain as an integral part of the article but be stoppable. It appears to be the case that you can achieve this, yourself, as a reader, by using a browser plugin. But there appears to be no way for us to do that for all readers within Wikimedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I've implemented a hacky solution in Special:Diff/1267295457; happy to revert if you don't think it's an improvement. After committing this, I noticed that http://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T85838#8667603 links to https://css-tricks.com/pause-gif-details-summary, which seems to be a more elegant version of the same trick. Preimage (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It completely failed to do anything useful for me. Other than putting a big distracting and non-clickable banner about clicking to stop above the image, and undesirably cropping the image, the effect of clicking was the same as before (I got taken away from the article to the image page). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be a workable solution. The reader can see the constant animation as before if they want. It's all on the same page. Readers with vision problems can stop it with one click. Another starts it if they choose to observe the animation while reading the article. As mentioned, there might be ways to refine this. Thank you. Humpster (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Only if by "can see the constant animation as before" you mean "can see only a cropped-off version of part of the animation" and by "can stop it with one click" you mean "can stop it by going to another page where it and the article are not visible any more". Clicking on the click here banner does nothing. Clicking on the image goes to another page. Clicking on the "hide" button (my third choice, because it was far from obvious that this was what you were supposed to click on) changes its text to "show" and vice versa but otherwise does nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

For me, clicking on Show/Hide toggles the animation on and off pretty nicely. I agree with your other objections. Mgnbar (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Preimage (talk · contribs) offered a "hacky" solution in good faith. The fix I illustrated on my user page was even more crude. Neither example was intended as a final. Incremental edits are the normal process for improving an article and we are both trying to advance the discussion positively. Your suggestions for meeting the guidelines are also welcome.

The elegant approach [1] Preimage found seems a good method. It would add one small control. What do you think, David Eppstein (talk · contribs)? Your assistance in solving a problem would be most welcome.

Humpster (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Clicking on your link gives a 404 error. Where can I find this "elegant approach" actually given in a demo showing that it can be made to work in a Wikipedia article (where there is much less control over what we can do than in arbitrary web pages)? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

See https://css-tricks.com/pause-gif-details-summary. Unfortunately, I've looked into this, and it won't work on WP because the <details> and <summary> tags aren't natively supported in wikitext (Help:HTML in wikitext) and because en:WP hasn't enabled mw:Extension:Details (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/api.php?action=query&meta=siteinfo&siprop=extensions, https://wikiapiary.com/wiki/Extension:Details).

Ultimately, I think the issue is that WP management hasn't prioritized the WCAG support tickets T85838 and T85840. There are a few more tweaks to the original approach we could try — e.g. using separate collapsible elements for the animated and static images — which I'll be testing in this sandbox page (not ready yet, I'll post here when it is). But if we can't fix it ourselves, I agree with @David Eppstein's assertion in WT:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Looping GIFs and accessibility that removing one of the few math Featured Pictures is not going to improve the article. Preimage (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@David Eppstein, @Humphrey Tribble, @Mgnbar: I'd appreciate your feedback on the new version posted for testing at Talk:Four-dimensional space/sandbox. It's based on the calculator template advertised in WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-01-15/Technology report.

With JS disabled, it shows the animated gif with caption, exactly like the current version of the page. With JS enabled, it displays two radio buttons "Animated" and "Static" below the image caption, enabling the animation to be started/stopped. Before the calculator template kicks in, there is a brief flash of unstyled content (100ms?) where it shows

1
Animated
Static

instead of the radio buttons. Template:Switcher seems to have the same behaviour here (see examples at User:Jackmcbarn/switcher). Preimage (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Works great for me in a browser. On the android mobile App I cannot even open the page (but other pages with the calculator app do not work on mobile): it tells me that the page does not exist. I guess the special permalink does not work on mobile? Maybe I can get there through the actual link Talk:Four-dimensional space/sandbox; if so I will report back. On the same mobile app, by the way, the main article animated gif does animate, so if this stoppable version defaults to the same behavior then at least it would be mostly harmless. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Update: I can get to the sandbox that way on mobile, see its update history, etc., but all I can see in the sandbox is an empty discussion page and a link saying that I can start a discussion. No image of any kind visible. Mobile is broken in a lot of ways and I guess this is one. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Ouch. Not ready for primetime then, until mobile gets fixed. Thanks for letting me know; I think I'm going to drop this project for now. Preimage (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't even tell whether it works on mobile because mobile won't show anything to me in the talk/sandbox namespace. Likely in article namespace it would at least be visible in some way. If it provides a reasonable default on mobile it still might be harmless there and helpful for the non-mobile readers. Other calculator-based gadgets that I've seen here, in the article namespace, provide their default view on mobile rather than functioning as calculators. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. With some trepidation, I've just applied the changes in article mainspace. Unlike when we were testing on the talk page, they seem to work OK in en.m.wikipedia view, as well as on the Android mobile app (which I've just installed). Can't test on every platform/device though; people should revert if it's broken for them. Otherwise, hopefully this fixes the accessibility issue, in which case we should remove the tag. Preimage (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks ok to me on both. Android mobile readers won't see the button to make it static but it's no worse than it was before. My browser platforms are OS X and Firefox, btw. Maybe the same thing could be done for the animated Clifford torus image later in the article? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Preimage (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Bug in switcher

There is a bug in the Animated–Static switcher: when I click a switcher label in the Four-dimensional space#Hypersphere section, the page jumps to the first switcher and "Static" gets selected in it instead:

Jack who built the house (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this, @JWBTH. While I can't replicate it on my browser platforms, my theory is it's caused by my reuse of the same id across different {{calculator label}} elements, as Template:Calculator#Scoping states Please note that labels are not affected by scoping and will likely go to whatever the next element in the document is with the correct id. (This is useful to know: it means that any template developed for displaying stoppable GIFs will need a mechanism for assigning distinct IDs when called multiple times within a page.) I've updated the article to try and fix this in Special:Diff/1272389485. Could you please check to see whether it's working now? Preimage (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The bug is still there unfortunately. Please note: I clicked the label "Static" of the switcher, not the radio button itself.

Actually, I just checked the HTML code: we have two <label for="calculator-field-static"> on the page, and they conflict. That's the source of error. Please fix if you know how. Jack who built the house (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. As you point out I was testing wrong, by clicking the label I was able to replicate the bug. Disambiguating the formula names in Special:Diff/1272423978 seems to fix the issue on my machine. Preimage (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I confirm. Jack who built the house (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll try and address the underlying issues with labels in the next version of the gadget. Bawolff (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)