Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2024/Nov

Area of a circle

Please see recent edit history at Area of a circle where some new editor insists that Archimedes proof needs to be labeled as "a logic proof" and that a calculation of the areas of some isosceles triangles needs to be replaced by subdividing the triangles into right triangles and summing their areas instead, in not-well-written English. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that these edits are not good. However I hope that someone can improve the readability of this section.

I think the 'not greater' argument can be described in a clear way almost entirely without symbols. It has two parts: (1) any inscribed regular polygon has smaller area than the right triangle and (2) there exist inscribed regular polygons with area arbitrarily close to the circle area. So if the circle area is greater than the triangle area, by (2) there is an inscribed regular polygon with area larger than the triangle area, but this contradicts (1).

The argument for (1) is that the polygon perimeter is less than the circle circumference (as follows from the fact that lines minimize distance between two points) and the polygon's inner radius is less than the circle radius. Since polygon area is one half the perimeter times the inner radius and triangle area is one half the circumference times the circle radius, (1) follows immediately. Fact (2) is extremely intuitive, and could even be acceptable here as self-evident. Archimedes' construction of iterated bisection is a good illustration but probably not a proper proof. Is it clear without doing some extra calculation that the 'gap area' eventually becomes arbitrarily small?

I think it's a really marvelous proof (or almost-proof) but I found its wiki-description rather hard to read. For me a description of the above kind is much easier.

(And if nothing else, symbol $c$ is presently referred to multiple times but not defined!) Gumshoe2 (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

MathJax for non-signed-in users in the future

Pinging @Salix alba:

If I understand correctly, every non-signed-in user will be forced to see math as rendered by MathML, beginning in December 2024. But since MathML has many disadvantages in comparison with MathJax, it would be illogical to shove MathML down their throat.

The users who are not signed in can change appearance of their Wikipedia. There's a panel on the right that allows them to change the size of the text, width of the text and also color. However, they should be able to change their math renderer as well. Given that they will be able to change the text, width and color, why not change the math renderer as well? I think everyone would benefit from that.

As an aside, why does the MathJax option read "[...] (for browsers with limited MathML support)"? It assumes that the only reason why one wants MathJax is that their browser has limited MathML support, which is false. Many users label MathML as inferior to MathJax, providing an overflowing supply of reasons, regardless of the level of support of MathML in the browser they use. A1E6 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Does there exist an exact definition of "Mathematical object"? Please join the discussion

Link to to discussion: Talk:Mathematical object#Consensus 1: Existence of an exact definition - Farkle Griffen (talk) 19:03, 13 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)

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)

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)