Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Main pageDiscussionContentAssessmentParticipantsResources

Pop-up previews do not include mvar variables

When hovering over links to pages, the pop-up preview that typically includes some short summary or description of a topic doesn't include letters marked as variables such as {{mvar|a}} (a). I first noticed this hovering over a link to the page Up to. I noticed the page Equivalence relation does not have the same problem because expressions are simply wrapped in <math> tags. Brl2000 (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Weird. The pop-up preview for up to includes the variables for me. It would be good to figure out what platforms this works for and what it doesn't so that we can narrow down what the problem might be and/or send a bug report to Wikimedia. For what it's worth, I'm using Firefox under MacOS with the standard Vector 2022 skin. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you using Page previews feature (enabled from the Appearance preferences) or the Navigation popups "Gadget" (enabled from the Gadget preferences)? The two different mechanisms probably have different bugs. –jacobolus (t) 02:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I can't speak for Brl2000 but I am using the page previews feature, and mvar works in it for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I had the same problem as Brl2000, but it becomes fixed when enabling preview gadgets. However, with gadgets enabled this is clearly not the same previewer that is used: Previously, it was raw text that was displayed, and now it is a fully formatted text, including images, bulleted lists and indentation.

So, the question is: which previewer is used in the default configuration, the buggy one or the improved one? D.Lazard (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Calculator widget is nice but...

... did nobody realize Wikipedia don't have article about calculator yet? Well technically article with that name exist, but it's more about electronic calculator (with some mention to mechanical calculator) rather than calculator in general (with etymology, types, etc). It's like having computer as redirect to personal computer.

And the only reason I noticed that was after trying to create Draft:Calculator navbox, and hit roadblock finding which article belong to what group, or wondering if the grouping is correct in the first place (because I'm not mathematician). Like, does abacus count as calculator? What about Napier's bones? Slide rule is calculator, does that mean nomogram count as one too? And many more questions like that.

I know I'm exaggerating, but without article about calculator in general, my attempt at creating the navbox might ended up being inacurrate. And I don't think I can write article for that too, since I'm not mathematician. - Ivan530 (Talk) 18:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

We have many relevant articles but most are in poor shape. Feel free to work on them, including proposing new articles or reorganizations if the text you add stops fitting neatly in existing articles' scope. I would recommend against just copy/pasting text around though, unless you are making significant expansions or improvements. A selection: History of computing hardware, History of computing, Counting board, Abacus, Mathematical instrument, Astrolabe, Sector (instrument), Slide rule, Mathematical table, Mechanical calculator, Computer (occupation), Calculator, Scientific calculator, ... –jacobolus (t) 18:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Polyhedra

Just informing you that WP:3TOPE had a lot of good articles on polyhedron. But is it possible to include Extended Wulff constructions (GAN) and Icosahedral twins as well? The articles are all about polyhedrons, but they focus on the science fields. Might need opinions from yours. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why they would need to be excluded—they are likely subjects for collaboration between users interested in polytopes. Remsense ‥ 论 05:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Finite set and Infinite set merger?

Both Finite set and Infinite set seem slightly sad articles, though ancient. Would a merger, probably with the title Finite and infinite sets, be valuable enough for editors and readers? Remsense ‥ 论 05:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Keeping them separate seems more appropriate to me, as it allows the contents for each to be more focused. PatrickR2 (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

There a discussion at Talk:Set (mathematics) about the structure of Set (mathematics) and its relationship with Set theory and Naive set theory. As Set (mathematics) is also a "slighty sad" article, I suggest to not discuss about a merge before having a decent article at Set (mathematics). D.Lazard (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

It's most helpful if someone takes a bunch of time to improve "slightly sad" articles first, and then worry about their inter-article organization after. In my experience many of this kind of organization changes amount to copy/pasting "slightly sad" content around from one place to another in a kind of half-assed way, and then giving up before getting to the hard and useful part of writing better prose, making more images, tracking down better sources, etc. –jacobolus (t) 17:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Perimeter of an ellipse

The Perimeter of an ellipse article is in pretty poor shape right now. It needs more textual discussion of the topic, more citation checking, and significantly better sources, from either published papers or math textbooks. I've had a go at cleaning it up, but there were some pretty bad infelicities that needed cleaning up, such as using as e and i as variables in formulas, and one formula was significantly wrong. — The Anome (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The use of e for the eccentricity is standard and used in conic section, ellipse, eccentricity, etc. Changing it to k (as you did) may be confusing, while the confusion with Euler's constant in this context seems unlikely to happend. IMO, the use of e must be restored.

I do not know which formula you consider as wrong. All fomulas were wrong in the case of the circle because of a confusion between the axes and the semiaxes. This is now fixed. D.Lazard (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Accumulation function

This page appears to be original research. This page hasn't been updated or properly sourced in 15 years. Please, rescue it or go to WP:AfD. 2025 is a year of decisive action. Bearian (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to WP:PROD it or to nominate it at WP:AFD. D.Lazard (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a basic concept in actuarial mathematics. I added a couple of textbook references that each had a chapter on the concept. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Attention needed at Brahmagupta's function

I came across this article in the new pages queue, but I don't have the technical knowledge to evaluate it properly. I can't tell if it overlaps at all with Brahmagupta's formula, and the two provided book references don't have page numbers. Any attention from project members would be appreciated! Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

If it is independently notable at all it is not under this name. Google Scholar search for "Brahmagupta's function" did not match any articles. And we have no evidence Brahmagupta had any connection with this function, which is connected to modern number theory. I would almost suggest that it is a hoax, except that the function itself is a piece of actual mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I have draftified the page pending the addition of sources to verify Brahmagupta's connection to the function. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Expressing certain symbols with math tags

I've been transcribing some equations for a work on Wikisource, and I need to draw a few symbols that appear in the equations: a semicircle (open, with the semicircle being the right half of the circle) and a rectangle (short and wide). I haven't figured out how to put them in, can anyone here help? Arcorann (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe try https://detexify.kirelabs.org/ ? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Without context it is difficult to know exactly what the symbols you're talking about are. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Sergio Albeverio page needs cleanup

Would anyone feel like de-CV-ifying the article Sergio Albeverio? XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Waring problem

May someone look at the last comment in the talk page? thanks. 176.206.33.66 (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

You mean the discussion of $g(4)$? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

yes. thanks again 176.206.33.66 (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Algebraic normal form

There's a long-standing proposal to merge Reed–Muller expansion and Zhegalkin polynomial into Algebraic normal form, on the grounds of overlap and/or context. It would be helpful if someone with a little mathematic knowledge had a go at either completing the merge (given that it is currently unopposed), or objecting. You can contribute to the discussion at Talk:Algebraic normal form. Klbrain (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)