Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#n-ary

Hello. Project members are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is $500 of prizes going into improving STEM, mathematics and business-related articles and we want to see a lot of articles from these fields destubbed and older stale articles improved. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for science, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Dr. Blofeld Destub? Business-related articles? No math, linguistics, and any other WikiProjects? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, for expanding stubs into start class articles. Mathematics is included in the STEM $500 of prizes! $300 1st place, $150 second place and $50 3rd place, includes mathematics, though we're not including biographies in the prize. There's $500 going into a geography and places prize, £250 into architecture and $100 into history and nature etc. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Let me get this straight ... we're going to reward the editors who can add the greatest volume of LLM cruft? How is this possibly a good idea? The reason that articles are stubs is because there aren't enough experts to expand those stubs. The chances of finding a person who is an expert qualified to expand five or ten stubs is close to zero; the chances of finding someone who can pilot an LLM to create hundreds of pages of nonsense is quite high. Personally, I think this is a truly terrible idea. What are we doing, here? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tqb|The reason that articles are stubs is because there aren't enough experts to expand those stubs.}}

::::The reason most articles are stubs is because nobody who cared bothered doing some research about the topic and then writing down what they found. It typically doesn't take an expert to write a basic Wikipedia article, just a curious person with some time on their hands (though this is less true for some kinds of technical topics). Usually the materials to write an article are not too hard to find, and often even whole books have been written.

::::Focusing on doing the most articles of at least ~3 paragraphs in length in a limited amount of time is probably not the ideal incentive, and in some past cases these kinds of contests have led to people making questionable contributions, but that's not inevitable, and sometimes lead to a substantial amount of useful work on tasks that are otherwise neglected. The possibility of a cash prize is obviously a somewhat arbitrary reason to pick stubs to expand, and people could expand any stub at any time for whatever other reason. But it might provide a useful nudge to get someone motivated. If there's any evidence of bullshit entries, including those generated by LLMs, the contributions of those contributors should be reverted. –jacobolus (t) 22:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Who said anything about LLMs? jlwoodwa (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

thumb

thumb

Does anyone know what causes the white appearance in an STL polyhedron? This complaint originates from the Talk:Regular icosahedron where a user asks about the missing edges on STL, possibly because of the same reason as mine. For some reason, this problem also applies to many STL polyhedra. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:If you zoom out significantly on the white icosahedron, it gains proper shading. There's either (a) some kind of problem with the STL file itself (either the shape or the lighting), or (b) some kind of bug in Wikipedia's STL viewer. I get the same behavior in multiple browsers, so I don't think it's a browser problem. –jacobolus (t) 20:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Anyone willing to opine on the notability of this mathematician? I think he is notable (full professor at Yale University, co-proved Zimmer's conjecture, shared the 2022 New Horizons in Mathematics Prize, and his work received in-depth coverage from Quanta Magazine). Best wishes, Esevoke (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:(please comment on the draft itself) Esevoke (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sure he's notable; for what reason should anyone need to add comments to the draft about this? --JBL (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you! It's because it seems that most pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Submissions are declined/rejected. Esevoke (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes that's because people write bad articles about non-notable people; your draft is fine and the subject is notable, there will be no problem once a reviewer gets around to it. --JBL (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have accepted the draft at Sebastián Hurtado-Salazar. GTrang (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

: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)

::@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)

:::Thank you! I have some sources. I'll list them here later! Thank you very much! Esevoke (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::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)

:If you're interested in the subject of Klein's book let me also recommend Yaglom, [https://archive.org/details/felixkleinsophus0000iagl Felix Klein and Sophus Lie: Evolution of the Idea of Symmetry in the Nineteenth Century]. –jacobolus (t) 00:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::{{re|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)

::::Thank you so much! I love that book! Esevoke (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Translation:

• M. Ackerman (translator) (1979) Development of Mathematics in the 19th Century, Math Sci Press {{ISBN|0-915692-28-7}}, published by Robert Hermann who wrote an appendix "Kleinian mathematics from an advanced standpoint". — Rgdboer (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC), permutation — Rgdboer (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

: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)

I noticed that the [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjecture_de_Zimmer French Wikipedia] has a better article about this topic than ours, but it says "Cet article est partiellement ou en totalité issu de l’article de Wikipédia en anglais intitulé « Zimmer's conjecture", so the page is a translation from something that seems erased from our article. What did happen? Esevoke (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:It seems likely that the person who wrote the French article took what was in the English article, translated it, expanded it, and then attributed because it was partly translated (as that template says), but if you want to know for sure you could [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_utilisateur:Vers75 ask them]. --JBL (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I've recently read a Quanta Magazine article about his conjecture on Seifert surfaces, which was recently solved. I am trying to write an article about him, but I am having a hard time (again!) in finding sources... Anyways, he received [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zRMftqMAAAAJ&hl=en many citations]. Could someone tell me if he is notable enough for the encyclopedia? (I think his citations he received, the [https://www.quantamagazine.org/special-surfaces-remain-distinct-in-four-dimensions-20220616/ Quanta Magazine article] about his work and the Lester R. Ford Award could be enough, but I am not sure). Thank you very much. Best, Esevoke (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:(Link to the draft) Esevoke (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::It was declined. The reviewer claimed the sources I used are not reliable. And this I don't understand, I used very good sources: Quanta Magazine, Mathematical Association of America, Mathematics Genealogy Project, The American Mathematical Monthly, and The Mathematical Gazette . Esevoke (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I believe the "declining" editor was objecting to the formatting of the citations, not to the sources themselves. But it's hard to tell because the feedback they gave was only a few vague words. The variable delay, poor feedback (ranging from non-existent to terse and unhelpful), confusing steps, and possibility that your work will be summarily deleted if you stop working on it for a while are among the reasons to avoid going through this process, vs. just making an article in main namespace and tagging it with a stub template at the bottom. Personally I'd recommend against ever using the "draft" namespace or the "articles for creation" process. Experienced Wikipedians rarely if ever use either of these, preferring to just write drafts in user namespace (or offline) and then directly put them into main namespace when appropriate. See User:A2soup/Don't use draftspace and User:Paul_012/Drafts are broken. –jacobolus (t) 08:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Hmm, thank you! I'll try to format the citations and see what happens! Esevoke (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I discourage inexperienced editors from creating articles, directly or via drafts. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Most of the useful articles on Wikipedia were created by inexperienced editors. So hopefully at least some don't listen to that kind of advice. I think the current draft under discussion here is just fine as a stub about the mathematician in question, who seems clearly notable. Having an article in this current form seems uncontroversially better than not having any article at all. More experienced editors can come clean it up later at their leisure. –jacobolus (t) 20:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

: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)

::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 $M\; =\; I\; \backslash times\; S^1,$ but also to the manifold $S^1,$ the projection $\backslash pi\backslash colon\; I\; \backslash times\; S^1\; \backslash rightarrow\; S^1,\backslash quad\; (x,\; z)\; \backslash mapsto\; z$ and a homeomorphism identifying $S$ with $S^1.$ Also, $I$ conventionally refers to the closed interval {{bracket|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)

:::@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)

::::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)

:::@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)

:Here are a few definitions(ish): [https://archive.org/details/knotslinks0000crom/page/94/mode/2up?q=%22boundary+parallel%22 1], [https://archive.org/details/handbookofknotth0000unse/page/128/mode/2up?q=%22boundary+parallel+if+the+closure%22&view=theater 2], [https://archive.org/details/bwb_P8-CPK-172/mode/2up?q=%22boundary+parallel%22 3], [https://archive.org/details/arithmeticofhype0000coli/mode/2up?q=%22boundary+parallel%22 4]. –jacobolus (t) 19:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

: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)

::Thank you everyone, but especially {{U|Esevoke}} and {{U|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)

I've found a very helpful post in the blog of arguably the strongest living mathematician, but it seems Wikipedia doesn't accept [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Arnold&diff=1295071955&oldid=1295071778] blogs as references... Wouldn't it be the case for an exception for Terence Tao's blog? Esevoke (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:See WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I think we can reasonably call Tao an established subject-matter expert in mathematics. Maybe not for other topics he might happen to blog about. So anyway, for mathematics articles, I think his blog posts are ok to use as references. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is going to depend on the context, the claim being made, the way Wikipedia makes the claim, and what specifically the blog post says. Can you be more specific? Edit: I see, specifically a [https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/the-euler-arnold-equation/ 2010 blog post] is being used as support for the claim that Vladimir Arnold is "known for" the "Euler–Arnold equations". I think this is an inappropriate source for this claim, since the source doesn't say anything like that. All Tao says is that {{tq|i=yes|"In a beautiful paper from 1966, Vladimir Arnold ... observed that many basic equations in physics, including the Euler equations of motion of a rigid body, and also ... the Euler equations of fluid dynamics of an inviscid incompressible fluid, can be viewed ... as geodesic flows on a ... Riemannian manifold.... The right-invariance makes the Hamiltonian mechanics of geodesic flow in this context (where it is sometimes known as the Euler-Arnold equation or the Euler-Poisson equation) quite special; it becomes ... completely integrable, and also indicates ... a way to reformulate these equations in a Lax pair formulation. And indeed, many further completely integrable equations, such as the Korteweg-de Vries equation, have since been reinterpreted as Euler-Arnold flows."}} This doesn't support the claim that Arnold is especially known for this work, but only that the particular topic is named for him, which is something different. I would recommend removing topics in the infobox, which is meant to be a summary, claiming someone is "known for" some particular thing unless we're going to actually discuss that topic in the article, which currently we do not. There's also no article or redirect at Euler–Arnold equation and it's completely unclear from the Arnold article what this is supposed to mean. If you want to add this to the infobox you should add an appropriate section to the article, either redirect Euler–Arnold equation there or perhaps make a new article at that title, and find a source listing the things Arnold is best known for which includes this topic in the list; otherwise implying that this is one of the things he is best for is, in my opinion, an example of "original synthesis". (The article also currently lists 22 things that Arnold is supposed to be best "known for". In my opinion this is absurdly over-long for an infobox list, and most of these should be trimmed out, leaving only a small handful or maybe 10 items at the absolute most. Ideally the whole list should supported by some secondary source like a biography of Arnold.) –jacobolus (t) 20:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::True but all this would apply to all uses of sources; it is not specific to the source being a blog by an expert. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::: Sure, but blog sources are appropriate for supporting different types of claims than peer-reviewed papers, so I don't think we can make good blanket advice based only on the author's name, without context. –jacobolus (t) 20:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you for the feedback! I've made some changes there. Please take a look at Mikhael Gromov (mathematician) infobox too, same problem. Esevoke (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Btw, another solution would be linking to List of things named after Vladimir Arnold, it's not the same as "known for" (famous for?), but then it's easier to know if concept/theorem/etc belongs there or not. Esevoke (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, see John von Neumann as an example: there are 5 things listed in "known for" and then a "List of things named ...". If an infobox list like this just gets crowded with dozens of miscellaneous entries, it becomes less useful. –jacobolus (t) 22:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:Better than no reference, but I can't think of many cases where it'd be an ideal source. In this particular case, material about the Euler-Arnold equations should be available in plenty of standard sources. Gumshoe2 (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural+density&date-range-to=2025-06-12&tagfilter=&action=history recent edits] at Natural density. Also pining {{u|DerSpezialist}} with whom I exchanged reverts. Thanks, JBL (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

: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)

: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)

::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)

:::Colon-indentation supposedly has problems with MOS:ACCESSIBILITY.

:::When display=block doesn't work, my fallback is the block indentation macro {{tl|bi}}: {{bi|left=1.6|$\backslash displaystyle\; ...$}}. That allows mixed wikitext and math formatting in the same line, for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Does {{tag|MATH}} work correctly inside {{tl|bl}} on all platforms. The wiki guidance on Colon is inconsistent: in one place it warns of broken {{tag|dl}} HTML and in another place it tells you to use it. Does nested {{tl|bl}} work well? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think you mean bi (block indent), not bl. Here is one in a nested context: {{bi|left=1.6|$e^\{i\backslash pi\}=-1$.}} 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)

:According to MOS:BADINDENT, colon indent creates invalid HTML. The mentioned alternative is {{tl|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)

::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)

:::" 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)

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)

: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)

::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)

::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)

:::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)

:::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)

::::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)

::{{tq|i=yes|"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)

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)

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"[https://www.chaos-math.org/en/chaos-ix-chaotic-or-not.html])... 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)

: 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)

:: Yes. [https://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~yakov/ftpapers/Book/intro.pdf source]. 2804:14D:4CD8:423A:50B1:B7DB:D9E3:CD98 (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

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

: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)

::Do you want to propose it for deletion, {{U|PatrickR2}}? Bearian (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

: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)

::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)