Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics
Main page  Discussion  Content  Assessment  Participants  Resources 
WikiProject Mathematics  (Rated Projectclass)  


To view an explanation to the answer, click on the [show] link to the right of the question. Are Wikipedia's mathematics articles targeted at professional mathematicians?
No, we target our articles at an appropriate audience. Usually this is an interested layman. However, this is not always possible. Some advanced topics require substantial mathematical background to understand. This is no different from other specialized fields such as law and medical science. If you believe that an article is too advanced, please leave a detailed comment on the article's talk page. If you understand the article and believe you can make it simpler, you are also welcome to improve it, in the framework of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Why is it so difficult to learn mathematics from Wikipedia articles?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be pedagogic treatments of their topics. Readers who are interested in learning a subject should consult a textbook listed in the article's references. If the article does not have references, ask for some on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Wikipedia's sister projects Wikibooks which hosts textbooks, and Wikiversity which hosts collaborative learning projects, may be additional resources to consider. See also: Using Wikipedia for mathematics selfstudy Why are Wikipedia mathematics articles so abstract?
Abstraction is a fundamental part of mathematics. Even the concept of a number is an abstraction. Comprehensive articles may be forced to use abstract language because that language is the only language available to give a correct and thorough description of their topic. Because of this, some parts of some articles may not be accessible to readers without a lot of mathematical background. If you believe that an article is overly abstract, then please leave a detailed comment on the talk page. If you can provide a more downtoearth exposition, then you are welcome to add that to the article. Why don't Wikipedia's mathematics articles define or link all of the terms they use?
Sometimes editors leave out definitions or links that they believe will distract the reader. If you believe that a mathematics article would be more clear with an additional definition or link, please add to the article. If you are not able to do so yourself, ask for assistance on the article's talk page. Why don't many mathematics articles start with a definition?
We try to make mathematics articles as accessible to the largest likely audience as possible. In order to achieve this, often an intuitive explanation of something precedes a rigorous definition. The first few paragraphs of an article (called the lead) are supposed to provide an accessible summary of the article appropriate to the target audience. Depending on the target audience, it may or may not be appropriate to include any formal details in the lead, and these are often put into a dedicated section of the article. If you believe that the article would benefit from having more formal details in the lead, please add them or discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Why don't mathematics articles include lists of prerequisites?
A wellwritten article should establish its context well enough that it does not need a separate list of prerequisites. Furthermore, directly addressing the reader breaks Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. If you are unable to determine an article's context and prerequisites, please ask for help on the talk page. Why are Wikipedia's mathematics articles so hard to read?
We strive to make our articles comprehensive, technically correct and easy to read. Sometimes it is difficult to achieve all three. If you have trouble understanding an article, please post a specific question on the article's talk page. Why don't math pages rely more on helpful YouTube videos and media coverage of mathematical issues?
Mathematical content of YouTube videos is often unreliable (though some may be useful for pedagogical purposes rather than as references). Media reports are typically sensationalistic. This is why they are generally avoided. 
"Improper point" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
The redirect Improper point has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 26 § Improper point until a consensus is reached. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
"Modek flattening" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
The redirect Modek flattening has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 8 § Modek flattening until a consensus is reached.  65.92.244.151 (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Merger proposal input requested[edit]
Formal request has been received to merge: Hermitian variety into Unital (geometry); dated: February 2023. Proposer's Rationale: If I was more confident in my knowledge of this field and Wikipediaediting skills, I would just do this myself. Edrudathec. Discuss >>>here<<<. GenQuest ^{"scribble"} 20:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Convergence Solved Leibniz formula for pi[edit]
I believe to have solved the convergence issue of the Leibniz formula for pi. [1]https://archive.org/details/improvingtheconvergenceofmadhavagregoryseriesandarudimentarycalculationfor. I have updated a couple of pages  Gregory's Series and Leibniz formula for pi. Please can someone verify this against the published material and find out how to do edits across other places where they say convergence is an issue. Brian (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Wikipedia is not the place to publish or publicize your original research. Nor is it the place to ask editors to find your mistakes. Nor is putting something on archive.org the same thing as publishing it in a peerreviewed publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 I didn’t try to read your paper, but you should try asking for help on some other forum (reddit? stack exchange?). The only vaguely appropriate venue here is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. But you might want to start by researching the large, large amount of past work that has been done on this problem. If you have a good idea about a practical way to compute π, it is pretty likely that other people have had very similar ideas already. –jacobolus (t) 15:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Okay I read your paper. Your idea is essentially the same as Archimedes's Measurement of a Circle from about 250 BC (except you switch over to using Gregory's series at some point instead of continuing with polygon division). (Also see Pi § Polygon approximation era and Viète's formula.) I can guarantee you someone has tried this before somewhere and written about it, and I imagine you could find a reference if you hunted for it. –jacobolus (t) 17:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Thanks!  I know the issue is the word 'Discovery'. When you look at the solution it is quite obvious this is not new.
 May be you meant  Liu Hui's method or Viète's formula, not about Archimedes is it?
 There was an anomaly I came across in trigonometry  deep in the derivations  surprised it was there in basic math. Looking for an answer, I came across this page  and I couldn't beleive what I was reading. A little effort and you can see the solution right in front of you  you don't need extensive derivations and experimentation, to get to this formula  a 13year old can come up with it.
 And yet all over wikipedia is plastred a notion that this series is not useful.
 In my document and talks I have mentioned this frustration.
 People (not well read mathematicians) looking for ideas end up on this platform. There is a good reason why I put this there  we'll know in time.
 A little inkling that solutions exist could be in those sentences.
 Hope you know how many places people vouch by this link of Leibniz and Gregory's formula.
 Currently my only beef is with the sentence that the series does not converge quickly. That sentence (and many others pages) sitting in wikipedia haave misled so many I believe. May be I wrote it on the page a bit too strongly.
 Mathematicians are not in error but the ones the maintain the record because it looks like information is withheld.
 Nevertheless  I respect the way you guard these pages. And I will take your point and leave it at that.
 Thanks for taking the effort to read the paper  I see you are better than others on this forum that interact personally. Brian (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Archimedes repeatedly applied the identity
 except expressed as a geometric construction, in the style of his time and context. (Desmos plot)–jacobolus (t) 20:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 You can read about this in Miel, George (1983). "Of calculations past and present: the Archimedean algorithm" (PDF). American Mathematical Monthly. 90 (1): 17–35. –jacobolus (t) 20:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 You are right  all of them in history have been repeatedly been dividing angles. It is not uncommon  each method is a discovery  even if it is related. Isn't it? That's what wikipedia shows again and again  isn't it? But the real proof of all these is the limit identity of tan isn't it?
 But the problem the paper address is not the limit identity isn't it? It merely says its an extra and attributes it to the limit identity doesn't it?
 However the paper addresses the ignorance of the convergence doesn't it? Brian (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Archimedes repeatedly applied the identity
 Here is one example of a paper adopting more or less the same approach you suggest, but with a lot more work put into the explanation and experiments. I am sure the idea is older than this though. Fernández Guasti, M. (2005). "Blending two major techniques in order to compute π". International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 36 (1): 85–92. doi:10.1080/002073904123313.. –jacobolus (t) 18:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Thanks, I am not a mathematician. I believe you are. If so even you, will come up with it in just a few minutes. I mean no details, experiments required. In one of my videos I say just this. Brian (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 For Wikipedia's purpose what matters is whether you can find reliable sources which make particular claims. It would e.g. be conceivably possible to mention this M. Fernández Guasti paper because it was published in a peerreviewed journal, even if the journal is sort of obscure and lowimpact. Though I would recommend against including more than a sentence or two at most, since it is not an especially novel, effective, or historically important method of improving the convergence calculations of π. On the other hand, adding a section based on e.g. a YouTube video or a PDF selfpublished to the internet archive by an amateur does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. –jacobolus (t) 21:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Yes this is right. I shouldn't be adding items that aren't peer reviewed. At least history of this document will be a testament that I tried to tell wikipedians that a sentence in there was incorrect and misleading to many. Brian (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 And Jacob, your arguments are quite fine. But you are missing the point  I feel burried in formation in the papers is not wikipedia spirit. TLDR is! so then people can look the burried stuff Brian (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Oh and this is a very very good example..your answers mentions so may papers but they don't mention the tan limit identity though which is the root... because that is not connected in wikipedia! Brian (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Your "tan limit identity" is not in any fundamental way different from the method of Archimedes (also Liu Hui, Aryabhata, Jamshīd alKāshī, François Viète, Adriaan van Roomen, Ludolph van Ceulen, and Willebrord Snellius), except for being a selfpublished paper from 2023 instead of a historically famous work from centuries ago. (I'm not trying to sound harsh or dismissive here: this is a true and meaningful insight which is why it has come up and been used repeatedly by mathematicians and amateurs over the past 2+ millennia. There's nothing wrong with rediscovering previously known ideas for oneself.) –jacobolus (t) 22:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 For Wikipedia's purpose what matters is whether you can find reliable sources which make particular claims. It would e.g. be conceivably possible to mention this M. Fernández Guasti paper because it was published in a peerreviewed journal, even if the journal is sort of obscure and lowimpact. Though I would recommend against including more than a sentence or two at most, since it is not an especially novel, effective, or historically important method of improving the convergence calculations of π. On the other hand, adding a section based on e.g. a YouTube video or a PDF selfpublished to the internet archive by an amateur does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. –jacobolus (t) 21:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Thanks, I am not a mathematician. I believe you are. If so even you, will come up with it in just a few minutes. I mean no details, experiments required. In one of my videos I say just this. Brian (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Dave, I believe you haven't checked math.stackexchange either? :), Its ok  I see no point in any discussion here. Brian (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 You might have gotten our replies mixed up. I mentioned you could start a conversation at e.g. reddit or stack exchange if you want feedback on your paper. David only said that Wikipedia is not a good venue for original research. –jacobolus (t) 21:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Yes, that is what I meant when I made that sarcastic comment. I had already suggested it on stackexchange  [2]. That's where I was pursuing it. Wikipedia was a sideline attempt to get attention so I could correct a mistake in laymans view of pi calculation. Brian (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Can you explain what the "mistake" is?
 That this series converges incredibly slowly for is a straightforward factual statement. It takes about 5 billion terms to get 10 digits! Note that this is an entirely different claim from anything about the convergence near –jacobolus (t) 21:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Thanks Just correct this part.
 "Finding ways to get around this slow convergence has been a subject of great mathematical interest."  you can change it to something like "Quite a lot of methods are available for improving this convergnce" (you may make a better sentence) ... then add a few references to the paper you mentioned to me and any other peer reviewed information will be better. Also many places in wikipedia this type of line exists.. that undermines the Leibniz formula... I don't believe I am the right person for this kind of job because I am not an accomplished mathematician. But there are people who can correct this misleading so, when people like me show up we know to dig further. Thanks for getting to the point. Brian (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 I will indeed add material there, but it is a nontrivial undertaking which requires actually doing the research and writing. –jacobolus (t) 22:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Yes now you understand, where I am coming from. I wish, I wish... wikipedia had pointed to the tan limit identity with respect to this convergence  because they are closely related  I was a pain for me to figure it out  something so simple and already known  just not connected. We need a right person for this job. Brian (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Here's what the "Gregory's series" article looked like a month ago. In the future I intend to add some more figures showing how convergence is much (much!) faster closer to 0, discussing Madhava's correction term, evaluation for , Machinlike formulas, Euler transform (originally due to Newton), and so on. –jacobolus (t) 22:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Yes now you understand, where I am coming from. I wish, I wish... wikipedia had pointed to the tan limit identity with respect to this convergence  because they are closely related  I was a pain for me to figure it out  something so simple and already known  just not connected. We need a right person for this job. Brian (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 I will indeed add material there, but it is a nontrivial undertaking which requires actually doing the research and writing. –jacobolus (t) 22:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Yes, that is what I meant when I made that sarcastic comment. I had already suggested it on stackexchange  [2]. That's where I was pursuing it. Wikipedia was a sideline attempt to get attention so I could correct a mistake in laymans view of pi calculation. Brian (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 You might have gotten our replies mixed up. I mentioned you could start a conversation at e.g. reddit or stack exchange if you want feedback on your paper. David only said that Wikipedia is not a good venue for original research. –jacobolus (t) 21:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 Okay I read your paper. Your idea is essentially the same as Archimedes's Measurement of a Circle from about 250 BC (except you switch over to using Gregory's series at some point instead of continuing with polygon division). (Also see Pi § Polygon approximation era and Viète's formula.) I can guarantee you someone has tried this before somewhere and written about it, and I imagine you could find a reference if you hunted for it. –jacobolus (t) 17:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
FYI Modek flattening (edit  talk  history  protect  delete  links  watch  logs  views) has been nominated for renaming to some title to be determined. Some of the suggestions are "modem flattening", "moden flattening", "mode flattening", "flattening", etc. For the discussion, see the talk page.  65.92.244.151 (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
65.92.244.151 (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)