Category talk:Mathematics
|
|
See Category talk:Mathematics/archive.
Can we try to put as few things as possible in major categories? That way Category:Mathematics won't be gummed up with as many things that fit better in subcategories. In particular, if we can put something into a subcategory, we don't need to put it in Category:Mathematics as well.
The List of mathematical topics, with its sublists, are the fastest and probably most complete way to flesh out the Category:Mathematics structure, if there are those interested in helping to do so.
| Contents |
Lamé's Special Quartic
The wikilink Lamé's Special Quartic looks ugly and goes to a page that says that there is no such article. I don't know how to fix this. - ReiVaX 19:46, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, a Google search for the phrase "special quartic" brings up 5 pages of results. None of the occurrences I saw were preceded by anything like "Lame's". I'm not much of a mathematician. Does "Lame's Special Quartic" even exist?
- Not only that, the article shows up as "Lam%E9%27s_Special_Quartic" (with no hyperlink!) in search results and even in at least one Category, although I can't remember which one and now can't I find it again! - dcljr 04:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why nobody fix the link of the "Lamé's Special Quartic"? I don't how to fix it.
- It seems it's not possible to fix it with the possibilities of a normal user or even an admin - there seems to be an article in the database, but due to the bad title it isn't accessible, it only shows its existance in the category. I have put a note on Meta:Non-development tasks for developers, so someone with more direct database access can take a look into it. andy 21:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Logic
Brianjd 05:28, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
Calculus/Algebra/Arithmetic
Why isn't there category of calculus? Integration seems lacking too. I'd make it if I was confident in my knowledge, but I'm not..
I think there should be a category of calculus, with differentiation ad integration under it. I think that arithmetic should be under algebra (it is now listed with algebra under mathematics).
Brianjd 05:15, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
No, my mistake. Thanks for the reply though. There is a category on Mathematical analysis, under which you can find Calculus.
Don't delete
Please don't arbitrarily delete the discussion on talk pages. If the page is getting extremely long, then you can justifiably archive old discussion (this page doesn't need it). See Wikipedia:Talk page#Standards and conventions of writing and layout. - dcljr 22:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't "extremely precise vocabulary and grammar" sound better than "extremely precisely defined vocabulary and grammar"?
Change first sentence
I would like to see the first sentence of this article changed from,
- Mathematics is commonly defined as the study of patterns of structure, change, and space; more informally, one might say it is the study of 'figures and numbers'.
To something like,
- Mathematics is commonly regarded as the study of numbers and computation. In fact, mathematics is more rich than that: formally, it is the study of relations, abstract structure, and space.
I'd also like to see the rest of the text of the first paragraph trimmed down, or moved to another paragraph. The first paragraph should appeal to the average reader. This change would also apply to the article Mathematics The points addressed by this change are:
- I don't want to scare people away by the first sentence of this article. Though I know we all agree that defining mathematics as the study of numbers is wrong, it is nevertheless what people will be looking for when the visit the page on mathematics.
- If people want a formal definition of mathematics, they can read further down. Move the line starting 'In the formalist view' to a new paragraph.
- IMHO, the first word in any formal definition of mathematics should be 'relations'. Though I guess 'abstract structures' is good too.
Discussion of this topic already exists, at Talk:Mathematics#Common_definition_of and Talk:Mathematics#General_intro
-- Sean Kelly 17:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I put my proposed change at User:Sean Kelly/Mathematics. Comments appreciated. -- Sean Kelly 09:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Extension of language"??
I have deleted a POV assertion that mathematics may be seen as an extension of natural language. It doesn't say which particular view in the philosophy of mathematics holds that, nor mention that it could be disagreed with by many (maybe most?) informed people. I've never understood why people say things to the effect that "mathematics is a language" or the like. Mathematics, like any other field, has technical jargon, but nobody says "chemistry is a language" or "meteorology is a language", and as far as I can see, there is no more reason to say that about mathematics than about those fields. Michael Hardy 23:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. In the purest sense, you could term Mathematics as the study of symbols and rules to manipulate them, and in the practical sense you could define it as an invention to model relationships, but "language" is stretching. Dennis 17:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- In the purest sense, you could term Mathematics as the study of symbols and rules to manipulate them
I completely disagree with the above. Few if any mathematicians think of what they do as the study of symbols and rules to manipulate them, and they probably wouldn't be interested in it if it were. Those symbols and rules are merely a means; they are not the subject matter. Michael Hardy 21:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Duplication of effort
It occurs to me that the WP entries in the mathematics category have a high degree of overlap with the material that can be found on Mathworld (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/). It seems that while WP on average does a better job in the textual descriptions, mathworld seems to consistently provide more rigorous derivations and references. For example, compare the two "Law of Cosines" pages; Law of Cosines and [1] (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LawofCosines.html). At the very least, we could adopt their Taxonomy of subjects and provide external link the analogous Mathworld page for additional research. Dennis 18:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I certainly disagree with the word "consistently". Law of cosines was terribly written when you posted here, and I've fixed it, although certainly much more could be added (including a proof and some examples). I think in the lower-division undergraduage subjects (about through second-year calculus, and including a certain amount of linear algebra) Wikipedia articles are often fairly clumsily written, but in more advanced topics Wikipedia is often better than Mathworld. Michael Hardy 21:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- And now I've put law of cosines back where it was before it got vandalized on December 13th by an anonymous user. It's a fairly good article. Michael Hardy 21:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
New Definition
I don't know, I felt like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Mathematics&diff=prev&oldid=9105097) definition of mathematics was a little better than what's there now. --Sean Kelly 23:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Categories for "Randomness" and "Random numbers"?
Please see my remarks in Category talk:Randomness about the usefulness of having both that category and Category:Random numbers. Thanks. - dcljr 06:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Mathematical journals or Mathematics journals?
I propose that these two subcategories be merged. But under which name and under what letter? -- Saaska 09:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)