Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Epsilon zero

Main pageDiscussionContentAssessmentParticipantsResources

Klein's Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert

[edit]

Hi everyone! Any German-speaking math editor willing to help me on starting a page about the book Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert? It's cited more than 940 times according to Google Scholar (counting only the original German version, not translations). There is an English translation, and I suspect one into Russian too. I'll look for English-language sources about this book. (I don't understand German nor Russian) Esevoke (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time in finding in-depth English-language sources, but there are plenty in German (unfortunately, I can't read them). Esevoke (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Esevoke, I am a bit busy with other things at the moment, but I would be happy to help (slowly). I am a native speaker of German and a mathematician. Do you have a collection of sources that need looking at already or would you need someone who starts from scratch? —Kusma (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have some sources. I'll list them here later! Thank you very much! Esevoke (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I was right: there is a Russian translation too: Лекции о развитии математики в XIX столетии Феликс Клейн (cited by 350 according to Google Scholar). Esevoke (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested in the subject of Klein's book let me also recommend Yaglom, Felix Klein and Sophus Lie: Evolution of the Idea of Symmetry in the Nineteenth Century. –jacobolus (t) 00:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
Some sources I've found:

In-depth (in English):

  • Review in Science: Miller, G. A. "Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert, Teil 1. By Felix Klein. Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin, 1926, pp. XIII+ 385." Science 65.1693 (1927): 574-575. doi:10.1126/science.65.1693.574.b
  • Review in the Bulletin of the AMS: Smith, David Eugene. "Review: Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert von Felix Klein. Erste Band." PDF) 34.4 (1928): 521-522. doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1928-04589-5

In-depth (in German):

  • Review in Isis: H. Wieleitner (1927). "Vorlesungen uber die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert. Felix Klein , R. Courant , O. Neugebauer " doi:10.1086/358496
  • Klein, Felix. "Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert: ausgewählte Passagen bezüglich Heidelberger Mathematiker/zusammengestellt von Gabriele Dörflinger." (2013): 1-58. DOI: 10.11588/heidok.00014948 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_D%C3%B6rflinger
  • Wussing, H. "Klein, F., Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert. Ausgabe in einem Band. Reprint der Erstauflage von Teil 1 und 2, Berlin 1926 und 1927. Berlin‐Heidelberg‐New York, Springer‐Verlag 1979. XV, 385 und IX, 208 S., 55 Abb., DM 36, 00, US $19, 80. ISBN 3‐540‐09235‐8." (1980): 271-271. https://doi.org/10.1002/zamm.19800600511
  • Lense, J. "Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert. I: F. Klein, Sammlung Courant, Bd. 24. XIV+ 385 S., J. Springer, Berlin 1926. Geh. M 21-, geb. 22· 50." Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 35 (1928): A5-A5. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01707492
  • White, F. P. "Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert. Teil I." (1927): 426-427. https://doi.org/10.2307/3602766
  • Dugac, Pierre. "Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert." (1982): 78-79. (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Dugac I did not find link to this review (???))

Mentions (in English):

  • Renate Tobies, Felix Klein: Visions for Mathematics, Applications, and Education. (it says it was published posthumously)
I bet there are many more, just I couldn't find them. Esevoke (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Esevoke: These are helpful to get started. I have begun working on it in my sandbox User:Kusma/sandbox/FK. —Kusma (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I love that book! Esevoke (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translation:

Now in mainspace: Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19. Jahrhundert. There is probably more to be said about Hermann's work. —Kusma (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary parallel

[edit]

I once taught the topic of bijection, but only the bare basics, so I don't really know this topic enough to work on it. It's been unsourced for 15 years. Can somebody please add reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant content of the article is the definition, which corresponds to the usual meaning in 3-dimensional topology at least. Looking for a proper source is a bit annoying, a lot of books use the term without defining it (as it is fairly transparent). I found a clean definition in Schultens, Introduction to 3--manifolds, Definition 3.4.7 which can be added to the article.
However i believe that given the current form of the article it might be better to redirect it to a shorter mention in a larger article (it would be a different matter if there was a discussion of the context and applications of this notion but it would be substantial work which i don't have time for at the moment to do). Both Homotopy and Manifold with boundary seem like decent targets to me (though the latter is already included in another page, which is not ideal). jraimbau (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble making sense of it. The article has links to boundary (topology) and component, the second of which was probably intended to be connected space#Connected components, but does not define what a boundary component is. The example suggests that the property relates to more machinery than simply a manifold but also to the manifold the projection and a homeomorphism identifying with Also, conventionally refers to the closed interval [0,1], but that is a manifold with boundary rather than a manifold. Does anybody have a copy of the cited reference?. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chatul: User:David Eppstein created a WP article about that book, so he probably still have access to it. Maybe ask him! Esevoke (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not happen to have a copy of that book. The article about the book was mostly written based on its reviews rather than by referring to the book itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chatul: You could check the largest library in humankind history, the New Library of Alexandria. I think that for this purpose it's not illegal, just check the definition and then delete the file (3 Mb .djvu file). :) Esevoke (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few definitions(ish): 1, 2, 3, 4. –jacobolus (t) 19:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: Judging from a quick search "boundary parallel" is also routinely used to mean the same as limiting parallel in hyperbolic geometry. –jacobolus (t) 18:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone, but especially Esevoke and Michael Hardy for adding sources and expanding this article. I feel overwhelmed - and a bit embarrassed - by my lack of knowledge of advanced mathematics. Much appreciated. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MathML, display=block

[edit]

I've never cared enough to fully understand the issues around either of the subjects mentioned in the title of this section, so I would appreciate if someone could tell me whether I'm doing the right thing in these recent edits at Natural density. Also pining DerSpezialist with whom I exchanged reverts. Thanks, JBL (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a no-brainer. : works in all rendering modes, display=block doesn't, hence we should use :.
In an ideal world WMF would fix display=block, but in reality they're spending their money on AI idiocy instead. Tercer (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re reverting edits that you don’t understand, which is something one shouldn’t do (unless the edits are obviously in bad faith, e.g. vandalism). When I read an edit summary that says “fix bla bla issue” and I see no clear worsening (in the article, not the wikitext), I don’t touch it because likely it fixed something for someone. If it introduces an issue on my side, I don’t revert either, but try to find a compromise. You’re simply insisting the article look ugly for MathML users. When a wiki feature (such as display="block") doesn’t work for everyone, don’t use it. I don’t know why it doesn’t work (it should give the <span> element that contains the MathML a display: block; style, but it doesn’t. Of course, I can add a custom stylesheet to my wiki CSS or browser that adds .mwe-math-element-block { display: block; }, but that fixes the issue for me, but it’s a general issue, not something specific to my setup. DerSpezialist (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is some grossly inappropriate condescension, especially considering that you seem to be the one whose understanding of the relevant issues is lacking! Here is are the relevant guidelines about colon-indentation: MOS:INDENTGAP and MOS:FORMULA. As I said above, I do not fully understand the issues here, but I understand enough to know that there is a good reason to not use colon-indentation. It would be helpful to know from other editors who have been more involved in the discussions around both display=block and MathML whether the issues here merit any reconsideration of the guidance at MOS. --JBL (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Colon-indentation supposedly has problems with MOS:ACCESSIBILITY.
When display=block doesn't work, my fallback is the block indentation macro {{bi}}: {{bi|left=1.6|<math>\displaystyle ...</math>}}. That allows mixed wikitext and math formatting in the same line, for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does <MATH>...</MATH> work correctly inside {{bl}} on all platforms. The wiki guidance on Colon is inconsistent: in one place it warns of broken <dl>...</dl> HTML and in another place it tells you to use it. Does nested {{bl}} work well? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean bi (block indent), not bl. Here is one in a nested context:
.
So yes, another of its advantages compared to colon-indentation is that it works within nested block structures, such as bulleted or numbered item or in this case discussion threads, without interrupting the structure and forcing you to manually indent the next part. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to MOS:BADINDENT, colon indent creates invalid HTML. The mentioned alternative is {{block indent}}. The context of this suggestion is not math. In the context of math, the recommendation is display block. We should not be recommending counter to the MOS. If there is really a solid case for a different guideline, then we should lobby the MOS to change. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The colon indent creates "invalid" HTML, however it works well on every browser and is unlikely to ever stop working. In theory it's bad for "accessibility" but in practice screen readers seem to have approximately equal amounts of trouble with both versions (generally screen readers do a terrible job with our mathematics output, as well as most other mathematical expressions found around the web). The main reason to prefer the display=block vs. the colon indentation is that there are some HTML purists/zealots who care about the results from some linter somewhere or something. Readers generally don't care either way. For a while the display=block variant was substantially broken, but some of the bugs were fixed and now both work roughly comparably. –jacobolus (t) 05:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" now both work roughly comparably " Thanks, I have also noticed that both seem to work. So we should continue to use the MOS guidelines and we should not change existing content in either direction.
The arguments in this thread mostly lack concrete examples of issues for or against any option. (Dismissing the MOS guidelines as due to "purists/zealots" is inappropriate; I encourage you to stick to characterizations of outcomes.) Johnjbarton (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematician specialist in PDEs is needed to check

[edit]

I've started this stub, but I'm just an undergraduate student, and this topic is too advanced for me. Anyone who knows advanced PDE theory would like to check it? Thank you very much! Best, Esevoke (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to keep creating mathematics articles without seemingly having the proper background for the topic. It would be more appropriate to limit yourself to topics where you do have the proper background. (Even experts in one area would not think of creating an article on a topic in a completely different area that they have no mastery of.) PatrickR2 (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. My apologies. I will try to stop doing that. I agree with you that was a bad idea. It's just that I once read an interview with Jimbo Wales where he said that Wikipedia is like that (can't find the old interview now, but it was like saying that experts would eventually fix it and that it was better to have an article than nothing). Esevoke (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna limit myself to editing articles I know something about (basic calculus, linear algebra, ordinary differential equations, abstract algebra, high-school math, and so on...). Thank you for the advice, PatrickR2. Best, Esevoke (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just stick to the sources and you'll be fine. So long as you're in accordance with Wikipedia's policies (especially WP:OR and WP:V), a stub is almost always better than no article at all. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not want to be overly harsh. But there is plenty of improvements that can be done to existing articles for example. Or you learn and understand about something that is incorrectly stated or that can be expanded. As long as you understand it and provide appropriate sources, it's fine to edit it. It's just that throwing things around like Euler Arnold equations without the proper background seemed overly ambitious. Good luck with your future editing. PatrickR2 (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For you too: good luck in your editing! ^^ Btw, the articles I've created from scratch are listed here. Esevoke (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Even experts in one area would not think of creating an article on a topic in a completely different area that they have no mastery of." – People should not feel required to follow this advice. Anyone who is moderately careful can do basic research and summarize the content of reliable sources without being a subject expert, and those efforts are almost certainly better than nothing. Others can come later to refine and expand those. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles were originally created by non-expects in their subjects. Indeed, for plenty of niche topics there are only a small handful of subject experts in the world, none of whom may have the time or desire to start new Wikipedia articles. –jacobolus (t) 08:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Addition

[edit]

Addition has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palis' conjectures and more

[edit]

Is there any mathematician specialist in dynamical systems here? Hilbert–Arnold problem article is tagged as too technical, and there is no article about Palis' conjectures even though there are plenty of in-depth sources about it (one of them says "Palis' conjectures are precise mathematical statements, and therefore rather technical"[1])... I think people who study dynamical systems are not here on the English WP (this is my conjecture!), I never saw one, hahaha (just kidding! xD) (but it's true!). Cheers! Esevoke (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the term "parameter base" as used in that article mean what I am accustomed to calling a "parameter space," i.e. the set of all possible values of a parameter? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. source. 2804:14D:4CD8:423A:50B1:B7DB:D9E3:CD98 (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manifold decomposition

[edit]

Please add reliable sources to this list. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this is needed here. The main thing in this article is a table with links, so the whole article seems to serve as a kind of disambiguation/summary page for manifold decompositions. Clicking on each of the links leads one to a detailed article with references for each topic. PatrickR2 (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to propose it for deletion, PatrickR2? Bearian (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine the way it is. PatrickR2 (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Point plotting

[edit]

I've taught this skill to secondary school students. I think this is notable. Can anybody help to add reliable sources? Bearian (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have written an article entirely based on you own WP:original research. This is the exact opposite of the standard Wikipedia procedure: Before to write an article, you must start from reliable sources allowing to verify that the subject is notable, and look if the content is not already present in Wikipedia. Only in this case it could be worth to write a new article. In any case, it is to you to provide reliable sources to what you have written. D.Lazard (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian didnt write the article. They are asking for sources on an existing articles and topic. Tito Omburo (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search turns up JSTOR 41196135, JSTOR 27961038, JSTOR 27955804, hdl:10520/ejc-amesal_n29_a2.pdf-v29-n2020-a2. –jacobolus (t) 21:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unitary divisor

[edit]

In Unitary divisor rhe OEIS sequence a064609 needs a superscript * after the sigma, but I can't figure out how to do it. Can someone help? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —David Eppstein (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is back!

[edit]

For those of you who remember the "Gagniuc episode" (where several accounts were spamming a poorly-written error-filled book on Markov chains by Paul A. Gagniuc). Well, a news user had been writing a dithyrambic review of the book... and spamming another book by Gagniuc on Wikipedia: see this contribution list.

(I like the claim that before 2017 Markov chains were not really used in practical applications)

This time the book isn't about mathematics, so this is not directly relevant to this project... And it also means it would be harder for me to know whether the new book in question is a legitimate source or trash. However, I do feel bad knowing that someone is still using Wikipedia as a platform for the mass-promotion of their — or someone else's, let's not make assumptions ;) — book. Should I report this somewhere? I think @MrOllie has already been looking into this. Malparti (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine WP:SPI would be the place, since all of these accounts and IPs are pretty clearly the same person evading the block on MegGutman (talk · contribs) MrOllie (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have filed a new sock-puppet report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MegGutman and also alerted the most recent helpful administrator Daniel Quinlan on their talkpage. --JBL (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now my evening is ruined, because I've been nerd sniped, and I'll have to look up Gagniuc's book on Markov chains to see if it really is as bad as everyone says. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For your own sake, please don't. –jacobolus (t) 04:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't get through the first page of the text before wondering, "Was this even copy-edited?" There was an "ie" that should have been an "e.g." And two pages later, "JavaScript" was written as two words. The history in section 1.1 starts with some incredibly garbled claims; either the author didn't understand the sources he cited, or he was not capable of writing correct summaries of them. I gave up by page 5. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citations to Gagniuc's book on Google Scholar: 8 in 2017, 60 in 2018, 126 in 2019, 161 in 2020, 187 in 2021, 167 in 2022, 150 in 2023, 156 in 2024, and 39 so far in 2025. Gagniuc's book was added to the article in October 2017 and removed in June 2024. Over the first half of 2025, it has been accumulating citations at maybe half the rate it did during the last full year it was prominently featured in the Wikipedia article. Some of those 2025 papers were actually written in 2024, too. By "some", I mean 8 out of the first 10 Google Scholar results (after which I stopped checking). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he figured out a "cute hack": list your own mediocre book as the very first reference in a bunch of random Wikipedia pages in contexts where it makes no sense to cite, and watch the money lazy citations from other (mostly mediocre) sources roll in. –jacobolus (t) 06:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked at those numbers yesterday! :)
Anyway, his "cute hack" worked well for him: I happen to know the Romanian academic system a bit (having spent 6 months there for an academic visit), and with a book cited more than a thousand time, he is probably untouchable there. Malparti (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DOI Wikipedia reference generator is dead

[edit]

I loved DOI Wikipedia reference generator in the past, but it no longer exists. I want to format some references to be used in a new section at a math/physics article, but it's extremely boring to do that manual formatting with templates. Is there any other automatic tool? P.S. I want to format these references: User:MathKeduor7/sandbox#References. MathKeduor7 (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the first entry on your list in Google Scholar, copied the DOI and pasted it into Wikipedia:ProveIt which created a ref tag containing this content:
Johnjbarton (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! MathKeduor7 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Math of cylindrical mirrors

[edit]

I've started this draft about cylindrical mirrors. Everyone is welcome to help improving it so that it can be moved to the mainspace someday. MathKeduor7 (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]