Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Main pageDiscussionContentAssessmentParticipantsResources

Russian translation of Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups

I've been working up a little article about the book Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups. According to Neil Sloane's website and John Conway's bibliography, there was a Russian translation of what must have been the first edition in 1990 [1][2]. Does anyone have more information about this than the article already contains, e.g., some kind of catalogue number? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

The book is 2 volumes, vol 1: ISBN 9785030023687 MR1148591; and vol 2 ISBN 9785030023694 MR1148592. Here's metadata for the first volume, from the Russian State Library:

Упаковки шаров, решетки и группы : В 2 т. / Дж. Конвей, Н. Слоэн ; При участии Э. Баннаи и др.; Перевод с англ. С. Н. Лицына и др. - М. : Мир, 1990-. - 22 см. Т. 1. - Москва : Мир, 1990. - 413 с. : ил.; ISBN 5-03-002368-2 (В пер.) : 4 р. 30 к.

You can find a reference to it from Russian Wikipedia's article about Conway, ru:Конвей, Джон Хортон.

If you do a web search for "Упаковки шаров, решетки и группы" you can also find links to pirated copies, from which you can probably find whatever other metadata you need. –jacobolus (t) 04:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I had gotten as far as looking up the Russian article for sphere packing, but not their article about Conway. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Continuation for Addition

Can someone tell me what the purpose of C's syntax is in the computer section? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This C program must be removed. Indeed, it describes how the binary addition could be implemented in C. This says nothing more on the algorithm than what is already in the article. It is not intended to be used, since binary addition is hard-coded in computer hardware. So it is only a student exercise, whithout any encyclopedic value. D.Lazard (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The code listing doesn't seem very relevant. Someone interested in this type of tangential sub-topic can click through the wikilinks to e.g. Adder (electronics) or Binary number § Binary arithmetic. –jacobolus (t) 17:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Chinese-speaker needed at a GA review

As explained in Talk:Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert/GA1. Best wishes! MathKeduor7 (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@慈居: Hi! Please, could you help there? MathKeduor7 (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

With pleasure! Never done a GA review before. :| I'll see what I can do. 慈居 (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! MathKeduor7 (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Help please? Draft:Otis Chodosh

Title. MathKeduor7 (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gumshoe2: Please help? MathKeduor7 (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Not sure there is enough here to establish wiki-notability. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the assessment (I agree with you after discussing it with David Eppstein). It may be WP:TOOSOON. MathKeduor7 (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the "excellence in teaching" is not really relevant for notoriety. PatrickR2 (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

"Codenominator function" proposed for deletion

wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Codenominator_function

I have no opinion one way or the other at this point, but it seems to me that the proposer failure to post here was improper. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think posting mathematics-related deletion discussions here is normal practice at all, or particularly desired. There's already an article alerts page. Sesquilinear (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

What is this "article alerts page" you're referring to? There used to be a page listing new math articles, and maybe listed some other things related to this WikiProject, but that's been gone for a long time. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Michael Hardy: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Article alerts and User:AlexNewArtBot/MathSearchResult. —Kusma (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mathematics. —Kusma (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Keller–Osserman conditions help?

Title. Any expert in DG and PDEs? MathKeduor7 (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Japanese speaker needed

Gumshoe2 suggested me some very notable Japanese mathematicians who are not covered here at the English Wikipedia. See his user talk page, please. Thank you very much. MathKeduor7 (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

P.S. For example: User_talk:Gumshoe2#Hideki_Omori MathKeduor7 (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Elementary function proposed for deletion

Elementary function was proposed for deletion. The prod tag has been removed for now, but the proposer has added some discussion to its talk page. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Rgdboer: Why would you want to delete the article of such a common math term? You are an amazing editor, but it's not the first time I see you making weird claims. With respect, MathKeduor7 (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

As the article states "Many textbooks and dictionaries do not give a precise definition of elementary functions, and mathematicians differ on it." Since there is no intensional definition, the article attempts to give an extensional definition. The qualifier elementary does not provide an intension to subdivide the category of functions. Look at the Category:Types of functions used to place this article into the category system of this encyclopedia. Other types of functions all are described by an intension, but not this one. The reasoning practice of mathematics is biased against extensional definition. — Rgdboer (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

The source given for this statement is really dubious though. I have flagged it for wanting a better source. Although there is disagreement at the fringes, such as whether elliptic functions count as elementary, there is a clear consensus in scholarly literature (assuming we exclude things like undergraduate calculus textbooks) as to the definition. Tito Omburo (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Tito Omburo is right. Also see hypernymy and hyponymy (umbrella term) (like subconscious mind or ring forming reaction). MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

To editor Rgdboer: For many mathematical concepts, the exact definition depends on the area of mathematics and the context. For elementary functions, there are two different contexts: in elementary mathematics, an elementary function is simply a function that is studied in this context, and a more precise definition cannot be formally given. On the opposite, in symbolic integration, differential algebra and related contexts, the elementary functions are precisely defined as the functions (real of complex) that can be obtained by composing arithmetic operations, the exponential function, the logarithm and polynomial root extraction. This includes trigonometric functions, their inverses, and general exponentiation (⁠$f^{g}=e^{g\log f}$⁠); this excludes elliptic funtions and most special functions (generally, these have been given a name, precisely because they are not elementary functions for the precise definition).

Note that elementary functions of differential algebra includes all algebraic functions, although the correct manipulation of these functions are far to be elementary (this requires a lot of algebraic geometry, Galois theory and differential Galois theory).

There are many sources for the definition of elementary functions in symbolic integration and differential algebra, which all agree with the above definition D.Lazard (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Modes of convergence (annotated index)

Request someone from the WikiProject to please review the Unreferenced article Modes of convergence (annotated index) and decide what to do with it. At minimum, it would be great if you could add at least one citation to the article, as it's now one of the oldest Unreferenced articles on Wikipedia. (Or if the solution is to merge or delete, please take action accordingly.) Thank you. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made a merge proposal at Talk:Modes of convergence (annotated index)#Merge to Modes of convergence where I suggest merging this article to Modes of convergence. Gramix13 (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Source for definition of boundary parallel?

Boundary parallel has a definition that appears to be garbled, and cites a source that has a different definition, also with an issue. See Talk:Boundary parallel#Unclear lead - wrong links. Can anybody suggest an alternative source with a better definition? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Notes

References

Why are we even still at this...

Square root of 10 could use more eyes. For some context, after a related, protracted RFD debate about similar titles, bd2412 has unilaterally created a (bad) article on top of a redirect despite a reasonably strong consensus not to have such an article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Square root of 10. There's some weird situation with revisions being undeleted (by BD), submitting and accepting his own draft, and I can't follow all of it. Moreover, I've been threatened with a block by a clearly WP:INVOLVED admin for edit warring, despite following WP:BRD, so I'm disengaging. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I would probably support a second AfD of this article. The sourcing is quite dubious. For what it's worth, an IP editor can nominate for AfD, same as an autoconfirmed editor. Tito Omburo (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, I see you received a totally inappropriate warning on your userpage for this revert. You removed it, perhaps ill-advisedly, but it was bullshit. I haven't checked the other litany of complaints against you, but this one item seems very questionable and supports your assessment of WP:INVOLVED. Tito Omburo (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

For context, the content deleted in the previous AfD of this article is posted at Talk:Square root of 10, and constituted about 1/4 of the current amount of content, with no sources as compared to the dozen or so sources currently in the article. It is, of course, entirely appropriate to write a new article on a subject previously deleted for lack of sources if sources can in fact be found. BD2412 T 00:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Why are you threatening an IP editor by trawling their prior contributions? Also, I do not think the "sources" you have given would survive another AfD. I suggest you nominate the article yourself and leave the matter to the community. Tito Omburo (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, as this is an IP address it is impossible to know whose "contributions" are being reviewed. Secondly, the "contributions" are reverts of talk page warnings, which suggest an intent to conceal a pattern of conduct from scrutiny. This is in the context of the IP previously having been blocked twice for conduct issues, and warned numerous times. BD2412 T 00:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Your own response contradicts itself. It is impossible to know whose "contributions" are being reviewed, and the same "person" was blocked on conduct issues? You are hereby recused. You should nominate this article for deletion and let the community decide. How are you an administrator? Go hang your head in shame and think about your future with the project. Tito Omburo (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

The activity of concern is emanating from the IP account, whether the edits themselves are being made by one person or a group of people with access to that IP address. When an IP address has been warned many times and blocked more than once for conduct emanating from that IP, then it does not matter whether it is one person or multiple people; we block the IP address. BD2412 T 00:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Enough. I have, on my own authority, per WP:BRD restored the last WP:CONSENSUS version of the article, which was a redirect. If you want to re-create the article, please go through the process we all have to: WP:AfC. Also, ping this project, myself, and the IP, as per usual guidelines on article creation. Also please refrain from threatening editors, IP or otherwise, on manifestly manufactured pretext. In my opinion, you should be stripped of your administrative privileges on this project for this infraction, we don't need no stinking cops. But I am just one man. Tito Omburo (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Can we all try to assume good faith and remain polite here? (Aside: This page just did apparently go through WP:AFC.) –jacobolus (t) 03:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)