Talk:List of mathematics articles: Difference between revisions

minus;Very nice and useful list. The only strange thing are the names of mathematicians. I guess they should be excluded somehow or they should be in a separate list as they are already in list of mathematicians.

I think they should at least go to a separate list. They clutter the present list. There is the additional problem of their ordering: the first letter of the first name determines their classification: that makes it about useless. So Dirichlet is found under J as "Johann Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet". A few minutes ago, it was under P as "Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet". God knows where he will be tomorrow ;-) FvdP 23:01 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Ha, ha. I guess he would end at P, because someone someday will short his name to Peter Dirichlet. --XJam 23:29 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

The mathematicians are here so that we can track all changes on pages remotely related to math with a single "Watch links" operation. This list is not primarily for public consumption, and the alphabetical ordering is unimportant. If you want a nicely organized list of mathematicians, you can go to a list of mathematicians, but please don't remove them from here. Thanks, AxelBoldt 03:42 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)

A bit late, sorry for having pushed that move out... --FvdP

Names of theorems

It is OK to write Matiyasevich's theorem but not Dirichlet's theorem. Why is that so? Can you please decide how to name theorems? --XJam 09:50 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (theorems)

---

Should redirects like poset also be listed ? --FvdP

Yes, for two reasons: some people will use this list to look up a certain term, and we shouldn't hide "poset" from them; also, sometimes a redirect is turned into a real article, and we want to monitor things like that with the "Related Changes" feature. AxelBoldt 01:24 Jan 9, 2003 (UTC)

---

What about deleting one of "regular expression" and "regular expressions"? They point to the same article and are definitely redundant in this list. I would delete "regular expression", because the plural form sounds nicer to my ears (just a feeling ...). What do you think out there? --zeno 07:12 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

I'd say it's a pretty common standard in the mathematics area to use the singular; that way you can write [[number]] of [[integer]]s and get number of integers (the Wiki formatting automatically includes the "s" in the link). If only the plural form were only available, you'd have to write [[numbers | number]] of [[integers]]. The worse part is - without a standard, you'd always be guessing; is it the Sylow theorem or Sylow Theorems?. So I always use singular, as in real number, rational number, etc. Chas zzz brown 09:18 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

The main purpose of this list is to monitor changes in the math area by using the "Related Changes" feature in the sidebar. Since the article lives at regular expression and regular expressions is just a redirect, we need to keep the singular in the list for this monitoring to work. The plural could be deleted. As a general naming convention, singular terms are preferred in article titles, for the reasons Chas gave above. AxelBoldt 20:11 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

---

In view of the length of this page and the time it takes to load, I think it would be useful to have a page titled "Mathematical topics" on which one sees: A, B, C, D, ....., Z, and then clicking on any of those would take you to a page that lists mathematical topics with the corresponding initial letter. Michael Hardy 00:53 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

Yes very good idea Michael. The same thing would probably be with page List of astronomical topics and if someone would start others like List of physical topics, ... I guess AxelBoldt did not think this would be necessary some day. --XJamRastafire 01:04 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

The problem for me is, I have a shortcut which takes me to related changes for this page - if we broke it up into A, B, C, etc., then I'd have to check related changes for math with "A", then check related changes for math with "B", etc. I don't know if there's a workaround; but the main reason for this page to exist is that related changes function. Maybe a database function could be implemented which would make this easier somehow... Cheers Chas zzz brown 02:02 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Chas: the original reason for this page was to enable "Related Changes" for a quick list of changes in the math area; it's not really meant for users to look up mathematical topics. They should just use the search engine. AxelBoldt 04:18 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Yes Chas and Axel's arguments are just okay. But I understand also Michael's torments when he is opening this page. This problem still remains regardless of being just a function for related changes. His second function of being a certain mathematical index is also very useful. How to kill two flies with one shot would be fine to know. --XJamRastafire

If, for each link in the page, "Related changes" returned changes in both to the article and the talk page, then we could remove about half the current links (the talk: ones). That would probably make the page load a bit faster. Chas zzz brown 10:47 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

A related idea I've been thinking of... Many of the topics on this list might be better served by a List of physics topics. For some examples from recent changes in the last 2 days: temperature, charge, semiconductor, Electromagnetism, special relativity, evolution, diode. These are topics that I wager a lot of mathematicians know something about, but strictly speaking, they aren't mathematics proper.

Of course, a lot of physics these days is mathematical; and there's no particular reason some topics couldn't be on both lists; after all, this is primarily a maintenance page. But I see no particular reason to include "diode" for example. I can start on this process, but first - comments? Chas zzz brown 01:47 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Sure, diode and evolution don't belong here for sure. Do you want to start List of physics topics? It's a lot of work though. AxelBoldt 03:23 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Start with List of physics topics Looxix 00:34 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

Refactoring is sure needed but first can we break this up into several pieces? The article is extremely too long to edit. -- Taku 14:39 18 May 2003 (UTC)

---

What is the purpose of all the empty Talk: links? Don't they make the page unnecessarily large? -- Timwi 22:57 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

They are there so that when you click "Related changes" (which is the main purpose of the page) you see recently modified Talk pages as well. --Zundark 19:12 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Aahh.... the software should really be doing that automatically :-p -- Timwi 21:39 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

How about having two lists? One as an "index" of terms and the other as a list of top level categories. For example, the last list could simply have "Group theory" while the first has Lagrange's theorem, normal subgroup, group homomorphism, automorphism group, etc.. Phys 17:09, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The top level topics should be (and I believe are) listed at mathematics. AxelBoldt 13:20, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If I could just make a general comment. Currently the number of mathematical pages not linked to from this list must run well into three figures. That is, simply finding what is on the site and relevant is an uphill task. Fine-tuning would be welcome in all of the areas (a) organisation by topic (b) tutorial guidance (c) standardisation of article format to something stable and appropriate at a level.

If my previous wiki experience elsewhere is a reliable guide though, something has to be done first about the tide of stubby articles and 'opportunistic' edits. Not to speak of the demarcation questions on the physics and compsci and other fronts. Centralising lists are good for the simple reason that they find stuff.

Charles Matthews 08:37, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Why are computer terms on here? I study math and work on computers and the two fields are very different. Some things are arguably pertinent to both (eg Cryptography), but FIPS, ENIAC? These did/do nothing for math.....

The answer to the question about ENIAC seems to be that it was added a long time ago (in terms of this page) when, for example, there were also many topics in physics and other mathematical sciences included.

Charles Matthews 13:17, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

What do you people think of the idea of creating a list of mathematical examples? It would list concrete examples; Cantor function would be a good candidate. Many articles probably already exist that would be appropriate. I may write one illustrating the use of Lebesgue's convergence theorems; it was that one that caused me to think of this. Would those who would contribute so indicate below? Michael Hardy 00:39, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Lists are good. Would you want Petersen graph, just because it's a famous example? Sin(1/x) thingies? Counterexamples to symmetry of second derivative? Just saying 'example' is leaving it very broad.

Charles Matthews 09:36, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The fact that it's broad would mean the list would be long -- maybe even half as long as the list of mathematical topics. I would include all of the above. I guess a certain concreteness would be a qualification for inclusion in the list. "Riemann integral" is not conrete enough, IMO. The Petersen graph definitely is. Proofs and theorems would not generally be included; mathematical objects would be. The outer automorphisms of S₆ would be included if there's a Wikipedia article about them. (6 is the only value of n for which S_n has any outer automorphisms.) The non-Desarguean projective planes would be included if there's a Wikipedia article about them. Many concrete examples are very enlightening and should be objects of study in their own right. Michael Hardy 20:09, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

OK - sounds like a 'mathematical atlas'.

Charles Matthews 20:53, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. And I'm eager to hear about the outer automorphisms of S6 (if there's anything deep underneath at least). --FvdP

---

---

On general stuff about these mathematical topics pages:

1. there is now no consistency in the way they self-link;
2. the links to each other are as they should be (??);
3. I don't actually agree with the idea of links to (for example) Riemann as well as Bernhard Riemann now being in the list.

Charles Matthews 14:32, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Reorganizing this list

I would like to suggest two changes to this list:

• We stop listing mathematicians here. It's too easy to forget to add them here as well as to List of mathematicians.
• We go through and remove the non-math topics listed, especially if they are already covered on another list of topics. I volunteer to do this.

I would suggest that in removing a topic on the grounds that it is a non-math topic, you make clear in your summary that that's the reason for removal, and state which topics were removed. That way those who might disagree are given notice. Michael Hardy 21:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That is a reasonable request. -- Walt Pohl 21:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the above suggestions. Here's another minor one:

• Move the A-C topics to another page and move the categorical sublists (currently on the L page) to here. That way when people come here they can easily choose to browse alphabetically or by category.

I'd have done this already, but I'm not sure if it will screw anything up. -- Fropuff 01:48, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

Those are both really good ideas. The inclusion of A-C on the main page is so odd, though, that I had just assumed it was for strictly technical Wiki software reasons. :-) -- Walt Pohl 02:26, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I hear some good ideas here. Perhaps the relatively simple moves should come first (lists to the 'main page', A-C to own page). Then a bit more policy discussion. For example, the charter is currently drawn up very broadly, and the content reflects that. Things move on, and I agree for example that mathematicians should be on their proper list. But it would be good to have proper consensus about that.

Charles Matthews 08:40, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

While we're at it, a couple of other policies to work out.

• Red links - it seems to me that people should put these in the proper Requested Articles page now, rather than on the list. The RA turnover is quite good, while the math-lists have become unreadable.

• Redirects. Is there a policy to make for inclusion, or just leave it to common sense?

Charles Matthews 16:18, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)