Knowledge talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2009/Feb

1770:

editorial points: how to do the article better. Here I am not at all an expert. I know very well that "better to me" often means "worse for beginners". One probabilistic point that I observe is, (ir)relevance of the (un)conditional probability. I'd say that in this case they are equal not just by a numeric coincidence. Rather, the conditional probability (treated as another random variable) is constant (a degenerate random variable) in this case, due to an obvious symmetry. Taking into account the total probability formula we conclude that the conditional probability must be equal to the unconditional probability in this case. Thus I feel indifferent. Both are relevant in one sense or another. Do you agree?

4755:) that the area of an annulus is πL where L is the length of the longest line segment that can fit inside the annulus, independently of the inner and outer radii. For each annular cross-section of the napkin ring, this line segment is the intersection of three shapes: the cross-sectional plane, the sphere, and a tangent plane to the inner hole. But the intersection of two of these shapes, the sphere and the tangent plane, is a circle with diameter equal to the hole's height, independent of the sphere radius. Therefore the line segment length, the annulus area, and the napkin ring volume are independent of the sphere radius. — 3545:

prover backend for verification. However, my argument is that proofs in math articles serve the same purpose as "examples" or "demonstrations" in other articles; they show, for example, how the axioms of a system might be used together in proving a result, or what kind of properties of a system are useful in simple proofs. They should never be creative or prove complex results; they should be trivial and obvious, but we're not proving them in order to demonstrate the correctness of the theorems (that would be silly), but in order to demonstrate the proof method, which is something worth documenting in an encyclopedia.

3578:

demonstrate the proof technique, which the reader may not be familiar with, even if the result is intuitive. For example, I think in an introduction to group theory, it's perfectly sensible to prove some basic results (it doesn't matter what they are) to demonstrate how the group axioms are used together in a simple proof. I challenge the statement that proofs are self-verifying, just because there really isn't enough expertise available on Knowledge to verify that all proofs are accurate and remain accurate over time (particularly proofs that use advanced ideas from a particular subfield).

3694:

that trying to include proofs for completeness' sake is a failure to keep our collective eye on the ball and falls into an easy trap of mathematical exposition where a theory's narrative is contained in the flow of the logic itself without synthesis or external motivation. The argument that proofs are self-verifying and thus suitable for inclusion is a perfect example of its own incorrectness: it puts the burden on the reader to do the job of the author in making what is (when sufficiently rigorous to be actually self-verifying) a logical tautology, that is, an

3708:

the proof in a way which is different from "journal style" because the focus is not on correctness but on technique. However, just like examples can be excessive and degenerate into textbook pedagogy, so can the proliferation of trivial exemplary proofs return the article to an arid classroom format. For instance, in an article on calculus, examples of epsilon-delta proofs should not aim to instruct the reader in writing them, but to show how the formalism reflects the very intuition that is presumably discussed in the surrounding text.

4801:. A cylinder has the same volume as a sphere plus two cones. When a hole is put through the centre of the sphere and that is added to a shortened pair of cones it is equivalent to a shortened cylinder with a hole down the centre, and that is the same as a cylinder with the same width as the shortened cone. The smaller cylinder and shortened cone then together make a sphere with th same diameter as the length of the hole. Um, well, perhaps I did put in a lot of words there ;-) 3480:) is not very encyclopedic either. Both are useful though, as satellits of encyclopedic informations whose purpose it to make these infos verifiable. Though this is something very special to maths (I can't imagine other places where a similar way to proceed could be adopted) these pages don't seem pointless ; of course it could be argued, not wrongly, that not everything has to be sourced, and that there is no more reason to help verifiability for 40: 4677:, you will see that I did it by a far less cumbersome method, more straightforward, but still needlessly far too complicated by comparison to what I finally put there. It was while doing that that it occurred to me that Cavalieri's principle would probably work. That being the case, one could present this in a high-school geometry course. Do you happen to know if any of the books you cited do it that way? 4985:

be proven, and why you would start the proof that way. As for the second proof, it is written in an obfuscatory fashion, but the essence of the idea is that it mimics a classical proof of Stoke's theorem in this more elementary context. So I do think it adds insight. I expect many calculus instructors don't even realize the connection between Stoke's theorem and the fundamental theorem of calculus. --

3559:, in some cases creative enough to justify a new journal paper for a proof of an old result. And if a proof doesn't require any creativity to come up with, what's the point of including it when the readers could come up with the same thing on their own? I'm a little torn about including unsourced novel and somewhat creative proofs of known facts, though: on the one hand, it seems to be a violation of 1262: 3689:(undent) I think I see here that we are talking about two different things at the same time. One of them is the issue addressed by my long post above: using proofs as in-place sources for mathematical statements. The other is including proofs as part of the content of the article, as discussed by all replies to that comment. My opinion is still that proofs should never be used here 2349:. And yes, that does decrease the "wikihate" substantially. But it is in direct opposition to policy. The distinction between an introduction/advanced split and a POV fork here is that an introductory article is supposed to be an introduction to the topics in the advanced article. Here you are proposing that the "advanced" article be created so that people who 2943: 3591:, which proves a trivial proposition, is a good example of what you're talking about? I have to admit that when I first encountered Grothendieck universes I was a little surprised at how few axioms there were and how much immediately followed from them, so I think the proposition is good or at least not inappropriate. 3155:, the latest one being two months old. Unless someone protests I am going to promote them by moving them downwards. I think the page is still quite incomplete, and it would be nice to have some new proposals and overall more activity on the page. Last year there were only 5 edits to the page and 3 to the talk page! -- 2225:. I know the problem is of little mathematical interest being essentially trivial. However, as this is one of only 23 Featured Articles about mathematical topics I would hope several folks from this WikiProject could take a few moments to express an opinion about this proposed addition. Thank you very much. -- 4984:

As someone commented, the two proofs have been written in an extremely pedantic, long way. But they are quite short proofs. The first, as has been mentioned, is more or less the obvious way to do it. At the least, a novice mathematician would be able to understand what the statement is, that is to

3707:

I don't have this objection to using proofs as examples because this implies a conscious decision for the proof argument to complement prose material in the rest of the article. If done well, it surely improves the article by presenting a more complete mathematical picture, but this requires writing

3514:

Second, the statement might be questionable, but fortunately, a proof exists in the published literature. Great! It can be cited like any other fact on Knowledge. Math doesn't become less true just because the proof is not visible, any more than primary sources are untrue because you have to trust

2006:

I don't think that it's worth the effort to develop a long and drawn-out policy in addition to the scientific citation guidelines that Algebraist already pointed out. It's true that there are many math articles that could use some additional referencing, but also true that many facts in math articles

1813:

Actually, my primary disagreement with Rick is over nothing more than the validity, and relavence of, my proof. I claim it is valid, and renders 99% of the Article confusing and un-necessary. He says I am not answering the 'conditional probability' problem, which is the only fully qualified solution.

1538:

This year, the Riemann hypothesis will mark its 150th birthday. I think it is one of the problems that has gained some wider (i.e., beyond maths) spread, so it would be cool to get it featured. The original paper was published in November 1859, so if we make it, we could argue that it be displayed at

1421:

Richard's paradox is not particularly impredicative either. The error is the assumption that there is a well-defined notion of being "definable" without further qualification (or maybe, a well-defined way of getting from a not-better-specified "definition" to the corresponding definend). Given that

1347:

This is a clear delete. Eckerslyke isn't convinced by the proof of the uncountability of the continuum, and purports to find in Richard's paradox a reason to reject the reasoning behind the proof, although he doesn't seem to be able to identify just what's wrong with that reasoning except that it has

4895:

Though I shall not move a finger in defence of the second proof in your example, I quite disagree with you as concerns the first one : it is not very short indeed, but mainly because it is written in a slow expository mode (probably best suited to many readers) -indeed it is not very long either. It

3523:

of any rigorous proof is a mechanical process, and therefore the proof itself need not be cited for verifiability, if it can't be cited and it's nontrivial it looks to me like original research. And honestly, if we have a mathematical statement of questionable veracity that lacks a published proof,

2057:

It might be worth revisiting and revamping the scientific guidelines to ensure that they reflect current best practice. I think the attitude that "it would be possible to give a few references" (without actually giving any) has become increasingly untenable with the enormous improvements, wider use,

1883:

As for me, I like probability problems. I came to the Monty Hall Problem Article on Knowledge to further my understanding of the puzzle and the solution. I was shocked by what I found. I did not ask for the tedium of months and months of going around in circles. Do you know there are 7 archive pages

1738:

I guess there is a history here that I'm not privy to. Have you all already determined that my proof is invalid? Or are you instead accepting at face value Rick's new argument that having been published is merit enough for inclusion AND PROMINANCE in the article, regardless of, in Rick's words, 'the

4878:

I think we just have to allow them but they need some rules and better control so they don't mess up the flow, e.g. put them at the bottom of articles if of any size or as separate articles if important. One thing that annoys me and really needs to be guarded against is people sticking in erroneous

2112:

Glkanter has taken a look at the responses and decided they verify his accusations of ownership (he wrote "All these other Knowledge Math gurus already knew about Rick's MHP article Ownership issues!") If you are interested in your response not being misused, I suggest leaving a comment on the MHP

4104:

Hrm, I don't exactly see this, though I do see some weird rendering anomalies in moderate sizes. They disappear when the implies is full screen though. I use "\documentclass{article}\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}\begin{document}$ $ a \implies b$ $ \end{document}" and pdflatex (from tetex 3.0-1006)

3740:

I think the comment about survey articles says it for me: include a proof iff someone writing a survey on that particular topic would at least consider it as content. Generally sketches of proofs are much superior, anyway: if the proof depends on the Widget Lemma, saying that is a helpful guide to

3693:

proofs, because that would be either textbook or OR content, and anyway we are not generally in the business of convincing the reader of anything, except of course (like in the infamous Monty Hall problem) if the proof or the question of the truth of what it proves are themselves notable. I think

3662:

I suppose that's the really worrying problem for me: It's very easy to hide important facts in the middle of proofs, and we want to avoid that if at all possible. I think a straightforward proof should be presented if it's a good way of suggesting something deep. Otherwise it's not interesting;

2971:

It's pretty clear-cut. Something like this appears to be called for: "the time derivative of X is equal to the theta derivative of X multiplied by the time derivative of theta, and the time derivative of theta is equal to ell times the square of u divided by the square of p." Remember, the blind

1831:

You may have already addressed the issue with your statement "Taking into account the total probability formula we conclude that the conditional probability must be equal to the unconditional probability in this case." I think that's the point that I, and many others before me, have been trying to

3544:

The inclusion of proofs in Knowledge is a difficult and complex question, and it isn't lost on me that contributors often make small changes in good faith that invalidate the correctness of proofs. I think in the long term a much better place for proofs will be a wiki attached to a formal theorem

4089:

If you look closely, this has always been like that in any LaTeX-Installation, at least with the standard fonts. The "parallel" lines are somewhat wider at the point, probably to counteract some visual illusion where exactly parallel lines would appear narrower at the point. But the antialiasing

2642:

Thank goodness that has all gone away, hopefully for ever this time. I tried reading one of the papers and it just didn't make much sense for me, it was like a Chinese paper about making insulin where they had a whole bit on it being due to the thoughts of Chairman Mao. He put a lot of work into

2478:

Compare to the present case, where there is no different subject matter being proposed for the two articles, but only a different level of treatment, and with nothing very difficult proposed for the more "advanced" article. The right way to handle that is just to put the more difficult material

1645:

I know many of you might question my sanity because of this, but I've been trying to explain the difference between conditional and unconditional probability to a user on the talk page for the Monty Hall problem. I don't know if it might be helpful, but could as many folks from this project as

2718:

The merger is appropriate. Generalised circle may refer to a variety of different constructions in geometry. The more common contemporary usage is a curve along which a cartan connection is Lie derived. This includes, for instance, the "conformal circles" of conformal differential geometry.

2099:

I have interacted with Rick Block several times on this article over a period of nearly 2 years, disagreeing with him substantially and/or proposing significant changes. I have seen no evidence of article ownership, only a desire to maintain the high quality of an article that tends to attract

4162:

TeX offers no facilities for line-breaking within equations. Knuth says somewhere in the TeXBook that line-breaking in equations is impossible to do mechanically, because there are too many things to consider, foremost among them being the underlying mathematical content (which TeX does not

1769:

Thank you for the trust. Yes, you are right: I did not read seriously your discussion with Rick. I am sorry saying so, but it is really difficult to read such a long story. It seems to me (correct me if I am wrong) that you two do not disagree on a point of probability theory, but rather, on

2196:

You are 100% correct. Two days ago, before I ever brought the topic of Ownership to your attention, I was guilty of pre-judging you all. I apologize for that. When I took a leap from your being aware of Rick's fondness for the Article, to the conclusion that you would therefore have already

1417:

Not especially related as far as I can tell. The Cantor argument is predicative; given an enumeration of real numbers (whether or not it enumerates all of them), one constructs a real not enumerated. Nothing in that construction depends on the real being constructed, but only on the given

4576:. I don't think Wikid77 has considered this problem. (After all, breaking along a binary operator is usually less desirable than breaking along an equals sign or inequality anyway.) I'm going to leave another reply on his talk page; but he doesn't seem to listen to objections very well. 3577:

Apologies for being unclear; of course anything can be included if it's sourced and relevant. As for "what's the point of including it when the readers could come up with the same thing on their own?" - well, like I said, the point isn't to establish the correctness of the theorem; it's to

2268:

Surely we can do this in one article - or are you saying the distinction between unconditional and conditional probability is so technical there is no point in discussing it in a general encyclopedia article? It seems to me this distinction is the essence of several popular "paradoxes".

3434:, and now there's just a sad lonely lemma claiming that min/max in a total order forms a distributive lattice. It doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me: it's an important fact, but not an important proof, and I don't think it deserves its own article. But I'm not sure what to do with it. — 2540:

For those of you who have participated in the recent AfD that has been so polluted with false statements by sock puppets, can I ask that you look at the list of references on the AfD's talk page once again. I (and a few others) have tried to clean them up to the point that verifying

1402:, but it's been a long time since I looked at that. Cohen thought impredicativity had some implications for set theory, but I seem to recall he was somewhat non-committal about its ultimate consequences. Does predicativity really mean Cantor's arguments don't work (I doubt it)? 2663:. I have the impression the material now there may have been taken entirely from Hans Schwerdtfeger's book. I don't know why the word "generalised" is used, so if it doesn't get merged, maybe the title should be changed, although I'm not sure what to change it to. Opinions? 1975:

I have notice that many math related articles have little to no referencing. Therefore, I wanted to know if you had any policies or guidelines concerning referencing and citing information in math related articles, and, if not, would people be interested in developing one?

3488:

since both can be very easily checked without help by somebody with a level of knowledge adapted to the article where they are to be found. All in all, I don't think efforts to eradicate such trivial proof pages are well directed, though I shall not fight to keep them.

2593:. Myself, Plclark, Arthur Rubin, and perhaps David Eppstein have based our votes in the (un)reliability of the source (providers). I suspect many others who gave short reasons also based their decision on the behavior of the "keepers" and of the the original author. 1748:

Please be advised, that is was Rick who created the section headed 'Glkanter's objection', not Glkanter. I would respectfully request that you read the section I did create, titled 'Conventional Wisdom' before you pass judgement on the merits of my criticisms of the

4896:

is not especially difficult or intricate (I don't see any significantly easier way to do). More important, it clarifies quite a few things as concerns the theorem proper : when I look at this proof, I understand quickly that the theorem is an easy subproduct of the

3449:

I think these pages are part of the "article proofs" project, with the aim of including proofs of all the claims that are made in the corresponding main article. I don't have any strong opinion about them, but I agree that they are not independent articles. — Carl

3223:

Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory): \overline{\mathbf{PT}}^{2} = \overline{\mathbf{PM}}\times\overline{\mathbf{PN}} = \overline{\mathbf{PA}}\times\overline{\mathbf{PB}} = \left(s - r \right)\times\left(s + r \right) = s^{2} - r^{2} =

1708:

One strategy for harm reduction, when this happens at WP, is to create an "Arguments" subpage of the article's talk page, and move all these exchanges there. This expedient is not strictly speaking sanctioned by the relevant policies and guidelines (excepting

1355:. But it hasn't. The argument may have been notably made — it's something I wouldn't be astonished to see attributed to that crackpot Wittgenstein, if he had been aware of Richard's paradox, which I don't know whether he was or not — but not under the name 2584:

Kind of a nasty one, so feel free to steer clear. It is just that most of the active WP Math people have already commented, and I wanted to ask each of them to reconsider the "reliable" part of the proposed sources. However, I guess it makes sense to link

2559:

Obviously, each of you should make up their own mind if the concept really meets wikipedia's notability criteria, but I think many of us have been tricked into not even reading over the references. The ones with DOIs on the talk page are almost all "good".

2755: 2015:

When you add material to articles, only add stuff that agrees with the general consensus of published texts in the field. In general, this means that you know it would be possible to give a few references that cover the point in the way you're covering

1684:

But take it easy (and avoid the carpal tunnel syndrome!). Sometimes we fail to convince an editor, and resolve the conflict otherwise. That is the life, especially in Knowledge. I am an expert in probability, but do not think it helps to convince...

3717:

and all other articles of similar genesis should be frowned upon. No article here should require the knowledge of particular details of the layout and contents of a specific other article even for its existence to be justified. Something like the

1700:

Yes, Rick, I don't know how many times you've been around this particular barn, but trust me, this sort of discussion never comes to a conclusion. If you like you can look up my old postings in sci.math and sci.logic to see how long it took

3050:

Ok. Thanks for pointing that out. Well then, I'm removing the template from the handful of articles it's on. I can see no good reason for any of the templating on them. Should this template be deleted? It seems to see almost no use.

3529:

It seems to me also that Planet Math is the right place for proofy articles. They like that sort of thing and their model may be better suited to including them. We don't have to be the one-stop shopping destination for all math on the

2318:

Yes, this approach, or something in this spirit. My hope is that then one group of editors will edit intensively one of these two articles, another group — the other article, and so, the amount of wikihate will decrease substantially.

2990:

What is clear-cut? It is definitely not the standard to write that kind of translation for equations on Knowledge. Nor does the wording of the template in any way suggest this is for visually impaired readers. Quite the contrary.

4358:

s, that is, HTML non-breaking spaces. This produces slightly uneven spacing: Compare the first line, which has no line break, to the second, which uses Wikid77's method: (You may have to get really close to your screen to see this)

4142:

for non-TeX mathematical notation, and also doesn't seem to understand the effects of what he's doing—how to get math displays to look the way he intends (e.g. he seems to do some attempts at spacing that don't work). In one case,

1466: 3616:

Looking at the very next section of the article, however, we find a sketch of a more involved proof. It ought to be possible to present most of the facts of that proof outside the context of the proof itself: The cardinality of

4699:

I guess someone found Devlin's column just by random google searches or something. If you read the column a few months later, he explains that his cumbersome method was a setup for his followup article on "Lockheart's Lament"

2643:

publicizing it,I was wondering if there could be some other reason like selling a journal or something - or do people really go to that trouble just to get their name in some rather obscure lights? 19:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

2590: 2295:

I am suggesting, that in the one article we consider the 'simple fully defined problem' as an unconditional one (since the condition is a null one) and the 'real world problem' conditionally. What is your view on this Boris?

1370:

is another matter. My guess is that any of the content that's attributable, probably already resides somewhere on WP, but I wouldn't swear to that. If it can be sourced, the content could live on under another name. But not

3663:

including too many straightforward proofs amounts to either a textbook presentation (which is inappropriate for our goal to be an encyclopedia) or to undue weight (on trivial details). And, as David said, what's the point?

3554:

I disagree that proofs “should never be creative or prove complex results.” A properly sourced but highly creative proof can be perfectly appropriate to an article. For instance, I've included several examples of such in

4879:

proofs. Too any people come along being mathematical and sticking in what they think is a proof rather than checking. I think they should all refer to some publication, no proof should be allowed without a citation.

2586: 4839:

But I feel that this is an increasing trend with pages on wikipedia. Even after reading the looking at the MOS I am left with the following questions. When do we include proofs? (Some pages need them, for example

3510:

First, a given theorem (or lemma, or computation) might be unremarkable, in which case no proof need be given or cited. This especially includes anything which is "obvious" or routine, depending of course on the

4941:. I find proofs there, absolutely similar indeed to proofs to be found in "ordinary" textbooks in maths. After this experience, I see no reason to forbid ourselves to include such kind of proofs in our articles. 3321:

Could someone help out with this article? I am working on wikifying articles and this one is tagged for wikification. It currently has no lead. Also I think the title has to be changed, to avoid the slash. Would

3518:

And third, the statement might be both questionable and lacking a published proof. If it's questionable it is unlikely to be trivial, and therefore any proof is likely to be somewhat creative. Even though the

1477: 3274:

a problem. Over the last 48 hours, this has been happening with unusual frequency. I've just run into several cases today, and I found another user complaining of it on a talk page within the past few hours.

4105:

and apple's preview.app. I agree there is a problem in vanilla latex, and the antialiasing makes it look much, much worse. Guess that makes it almost impossible to file a mediawiki bug report for this one.

3109:

Could you chaps and chapettes please take a look at the intro to this article and tidy it, so it at least states that it's discussing maths (as opposed to a game that is continuous, like some kind of eternal

4959:

I would generally prefer forking the content to blah/Proof. This lets the proof go into more detail, if needed, and leaves the main article cleaner for users who don't want to (or can't) follow the proof.

2386:

Many people really need an interesting article (on this subject) accessible to them. Other people really need a deeper insight. Why should they fight each other? No more free disk memory on Wiki servers?

3170:

I started the page, and still think it is a good idea to have a single, central page where such matters are discussed. There seemed to be a little resistance to the concept, but that was some time ago.

2357:. And in practice, if what you suggest happens, where everyone that understand the problem edits one article and people unwilling/unable to understand edit the other, that is undeniably a POV fork. -- 2032:

If you see something that you feel is probably wrong, move it to the talk page and ask about it. Of course you should have some sort of good reasoning, not merely "I don't know whether this is right."

3637:, and the main theorem, you have to read the proof section, which shouldn't be necessary. That could be fixed with better presentation, but what's left is either trivial or punted to the references. 63: 4844:) How many proofs? (Some pages that I feel don't really need any proof have multiple proofs)? Do proofs blur the boundary between wikipedia and wikibooks? (Some pages are in fact only a proof.) 3196: 3188: 2749:. If the laws didn't have English equivalents included in the article), I would understand the purpose of it, but as the article stands with the template, I'm at a loss to see how something like 4147:, I entirely undid his work but then changed the display into two lines by using "align" within TeX, in the hope that that would address whatever his concern was. How shall we try to help him? 2445:

would strike me as ridiculous. General relativity is a massive subject consuming entire careers; the Monty Hall problem is a cultural meme cum amusing little paradox. It's — perhaps not border

2512:

OK with me, why not. You are much more experienced wikipedian. I support the "put the more difficult material later in the article" in a sincere hope that editors will then coexist piecefully.

3033: 3702:. As Ozob said, doing this can obscure important ideas inside the proof, and in my opinion perhaps actually encourage the migration of such ideas into proofs, where they "make sense" better. 3299:

to show up at all. (The image wasn't generated, so Firefox showed the bare contents and Safari a missing image icon.) It was fixed by forcing Safari to download the image. Might be related?

4601: 2938:{\displaystyle \ {\dot {X}}={\frac {dX}{dt}}={\frac {dX}{d\theta }}\cdot {\frac {d\theta }{dt}}={\frac {dX}{d\theta }}\cdot {\dot {\theta }}={\frac {dX}{d\theta }}\cdot \ell p^{-2}u^{2}.} 2700:, by the way. I think that's essentially the same thing as these generalised circles, and when I put some of that material into Apollonian circles I sourced it to Schwerdtfeger's book. — 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 982: 978: 974: 970: 966: 962: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 927: 923: 919: 915: 911: 907: 903: 899: 895: 891: 887: 883: 872: 868: 864: 860: 856: 852: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 828: 817: 813: 809: 805: 801: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 777: 773: 762: 758: 754: 750: 746: 742: 738: 734: 730: 726: 722: 718: 707: 703: 699: 695: 691: 687: 683: 679: 675: 671: 667: 663: 652: 648: 644: 640: 636: 632: 628: 624: 620: 616: 612: 608: 597: 593: 589: 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 561: 557: 553: 542: 538: 534: 530: 526: 522: 518: 514: 510: 506: 502: 498: 487: 483: 479: 475: 471: 467: 463: 459: 455: 451: 447: 443: 432: 428: 424: 420: 416: 412: 408: 404: 400: 396: 392: 388: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 345: 341: 333: 322: 318: 314: 310: 306: 302: 298: 294: 290: 286: 282: 278: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 212: 208: 204: 200: 196: 192: 188: 184: 180: 176: 172: 168: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 4504: 4399: 3769:

If people here prefer AfD then could someone initiate it. And if the article survives, then can a project member undertake to wikify it. It's a bit difficult for non-mathematicians.

1398:

latter article could certainly be expanded, but I'm not up on that stuff. I remember that Paul Cohen found some things to say about impredicativity in his lecture-notes book called

4542: 2468:. This split, I continue to maintain, was absolutely necessary, because these are very distinct notions, and there was no end of confusion from editors who didn't understand that. 4431: 4308: 4027: 3872: 4458: 4335: 2556:

Combining these two yields that the mathematical concept (not the scholar) has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and so should be presumed notable.

4001: 3840: 4563: 1623: 1157: 1102: 1043: 988: 933: 878: 823: 768: 713: 658: 603: 548: 493: 438: 383: 328: 273: 218: 163: 108: 25: 4057: 3902: 3629:, and the main theorem can all be presented without proof. In this case I'd say the proof is bad because it obscures some of the underlying facts: In order to learn about 2273:

is another one. I think the bottom line is that the Monty Hall problem is clearly a conditional probability problem and our article here about it should mention this. --

1714: 56: 3981: 3820: 2035:

Remember that some others here are experts in the topic you are editing, and others are complete novices. So take a balanced approach to editing and talk page discussion.

1596: 102: 98: 94: 90: 2460:

Splitting articles is dangerous in even the most justified situations. Take a look at the Boolean algebra articles. I was behind the split into what are now called

5080: 21: 2174:

I'm a first-timer here. It's been way too long, but is has been instructive as to how horribly mishapen things get when an editor claims ownership of an article.

4075:

as the broken fuzzy one too! I always use the unicode ⇒ so hadn't noticed this. This is a reasonably big problem, as that broken fuzzy one looks pretty awful.

3152: 49: 3755:

I have tagged Connected space/Proofs for merge into Connected space, as that seems to reflect the consensus of the discussion here. It opens the vote, anyway.

1758:

Mr. Tsirelson, all I know about you is that you wrote you are an expert in probability. I would be especially appreciative to hear your thoughts on the matter.

2062:

I say this primarily as a user of Knowledge. It is frustrating to read a weak article on an interesting topic, only to find that it has no useful references.

3037: 2949: 2678: 1513:

I closed the RH discussion as "no pass" for now. If anyone thinks they can address the issues, of course, there is no reason not to nominate it after. --

2479:

later in the article. Splitting should be done for compelling reasons inherent to the material, never simply to resolve disagreements between editors.

1635: 1328:? Someone has proposed deleting it as "original research". The topic seems similar to (maybe even the same as?) that treated in the article titled 1992: 1918:

where it belongs. You've already gone on for pages and pages and pages expressing your point of view there; there's no need to do so here as well. —

1351:

But that wouldn't be a reason to delete the article, if the same argument had been notably made, could be found in reliable sources, under the name

4139: 4620:

Which books or articles should it cite? This is decades or maybe centuries old. I wouldn't be surprised it it originated in some piece in the

1578: 3326:

make sense? Someone who knows a bit about topology and is used to editing maths articles could probably sort it all out quite quickly. Thanks.

3297:

I've had this problem quite frequently, over the last few months. And recently (a few hours ago) I couldn't get the contents of a <math: -->

17: 3563:, but on the other hand they're self-verifying and if I were writing a survey paper that's the sort of thing I would do without any concern. — 3507:, one needs a source for anything "challenged or likely to be challenged", so there are three kinds of situations we could be talking about. 1206: 1202: 1198: 4703:. And yes, he does provide a different non-calculus method. The Lockheart article is pretty interesting too. I recommend reading it. -- 1713:) but it's mostly tolerated, and it can have good effects in terms of freeing up the main talk page for its intended use. See for example 2482:

I hope my frank language does not offend Boris Tsirelson, a highly valued contributor for whom I have great respect as a mathematician. --

2019:

If you see something in an article that you think is probably right, but you wish it had a source, ask on the talk page or mark it with a

2948:

is supposed to be translated into English beneficially or have a picture. Has anyone seen this template before? It is not mentioned on

5017:(diff) 17:14, 30 October 2006 . . Amalas (Talk | contribs | block) (stub sorting, Replaced: mathbio-stub → mathematician-stub using AWB) 3722:

is of independent interest; the proof that a locally path-connected space is connected if and only if it is path-connected is just not.

1310:

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! -

1884:

dating back to 2005? And we've already done the old 'create an "Arguments" subpage' routine. So help us out. Contribute your expertise.

1548: 5058: 4970: 3431: 3075: 2746: 2438: 4862:

If a proof is short and easy to understand, then would you allow it because it makes it clearer that the theorem is, in fact, true?

3556: 3323: 3013:

Knowledge does provide a way for the blind to access content in mathematics formulas, who cannot otherwise view the rendered LaTeX.

2242:

Maybe it is better to make a pair of articles, "Introduction to Monty Hall problem" and "Monty Hall problem" (in the same spirit as

4918:", and as we have not to reinvent how to write an encyclopedia, my opinion is that proofs can be included as long as a specialized 1411: 1341: 4903:

I really think proofs are quite often useful and worth including (of course this is to be judged individually for every article).

4604:, about a bit of folklore in elementary geometry. Sometimes the proof of this is assigned as an exercise in sophomore calculus. 4822: 4172: 1670:. No wonder if you are tired! I admire your work and patience. I am never able to make a discussion longer than 3-4 exchanges. 3719: 4731:

mentions this briefly as being solvable using Cavalieri. I didn't add that citation because he doesn't go into any detail. —

2442: 4626:

or the like in about 1900 ± a few eons. Or could it be some 17th-century French geometer? Or even older? Ancient Greece?

3345:

this article? It is textbook textbook content; students prove these sorts of things on their point-set topology homework.

4622: 2956:

and circumventing the explicit instructions at Knowledge:Make_technical_articles_accessible to leave an explanation. --

1667: 1647: 5066: 5041: 4994: 4975: 4950: 4888: 4871: 4856: 4810: 4783: 4764: 4740: 4712: 4686: 4660: 4641: 4585: 4257: 4235: 4207: 4184: 4156: 4114: 4099: 4084: 4068: 3952: 3936: 3916: 3778: 3764: 3750: 3731: 3672: 3582: 3572: 3549: 3539: 3498: 3462: 3443: 3415: 3398: 3376: 3354: 3335: 3308: 3291: 3257: 3240: 3202: 3180: 3164: 3141: 3092: 3080: 3060: 3044: 3022: 3000: 2981: 2965: 2728: 2709: 2690: 2672: 2629: 2615: 2602: 2579: 2569: 2521: 2491: 2475:

articles covering the space of the original (confused) article, and restoring order to them appears to be a lost cause.

2420: 2411:

And then hopefully the next section (below) will become obsolete since "the ownership problem" will dissolve smoothly.

2396: 2366: 2328: 2305: 2284: 2259: 2236: 2206: 2197:

identified a WP:Ownership situation, that was wrong on my part. I'll post my apology on the MHP talk page immediately.

2122: 2106: 2093: 2068: 2052: 1999: 1985: 1958: 1927: 1901: 1866: 1857: 1779: 1726: 1694: 1679: 1661: 1608: 1590: 1563: 1522: 1504: 1489: 1449: 1431: 1384: 1314: 4825:, and I again was asking myself how appropriate proofs are on wikipedia. The two proofs in this page (in my opinion) 3427: 2465: 1238: 2471:

However I can't honestly say that the outcome has been happy. Rather than the justified two, there are now at least

1422:

assumption, the reasoning that takes you to the paradox is predicative, to the extent that I understand that term. --

5014:(diff) 16:13, 21 June 2007 . . Fabrictramp (Talk | contribs | block) (656 bytes (internal links; added uncat people) 2081:

On the Monty Hall Problem talk page I have been documenting what I believe is an Ownership violation by Rick Block.

2012:

There are a few simple rules of thumb that can be helpful for editors who are starting to edit math articles on WP:

1862:

Rather than apologizing for doing something, can you just refrain from doing it? This discussion has no place here.

4175:.) He also seems unaware that he's introducing MoS violations. I'm inclined to mass revert all of these changes. 3746: 3176: 1462: 1269:

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Knowledge's

4647:

The title is long and awkward. I suggest, following the Devlin and Lines references I added, that we move this to

2113:

talk page. I left a comment in the most recent section created by Glkanter, "WP:Ownership Allegation Update." --

4939: 1544: 1500: 5051: 1217: 5032:. Should we rewrite the article, making the assertion of notability clear, and then restore the edit history? 4946: 4760: 4736: 4656: 4195: 4144: 3568: 3494: 3439: 2705: 1923: 1586: 1480:. It might need to be closed as a "no pass" but I think it's still possible to improve it in a short time. -- 4922:

might reasonably include one. Of course, this means we have to decide which texts are or are not "specialized

4138:

displays to allow articles to fit windows of certain sizes, and he has no understanding of the conventions of

5037: 4779: 4682: 4637: 4203: 4152: 3948: 3469: 3364: 3287: 3253: 3236: 2686: 2668: 2461: 2353:

its contents can stick with the "introductory" article, which will only contain a POV consistent with their

2301: 2243: 2222: 2218: 1915: 1407: 1337: 1287:

No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A

2742: 5062: 4966: 4469: 4364: 3714: 3315: 3071: 2102: 2064: 1571: 1440:: I've quoted "The Princeton companion to mathematics" on its discussion page; maybe it helps, maybe not. 4510: 1615: 1325: 4110: 4080: 3774: 3760: 3742: 3588: 3331: 3172: 3089: 2953: 2625: 2598: 2565: 1604: 4405: 4282: 4006: 3851: 4435: 4312: 4064: 3986: 3825: 3727: 3535: 3503:

Using "article proofs" as instruments of verifiability seems to me to be always wrong. According to

3350: 3304: 3160: 3156: 3041: 2612: 2576: 2279: 2231: 1996: 1863: 1656: 1540: 1496: 1261: 4752: 4546: 3406:

has removed the prod tag. I won't put it up for AfD at least until the present discussion is done.

4942: 4867: 4852: 4790: 4756: 4732: 4652: 4648: 4253: 3564: 3490: 3435: 3122: 2701: 2487: 2270: 1919: 1722: 1631: 1582: 1427: 1380: 4906:

As Knowledge is supposed to be "an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized

3014: 2973: 2720: 1947:

Thank you for the gracious encouragement, professor. You are a shining example for the rest of us.

5033: 4897: 4775: 4678: 4633: 4199: 4148: 4059:

as having the same fuzzy character (different from the previous one) but with different spacing.

3944: 3283: 3249: 3232: 2697: 2682: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2346: 2297: 2202: 2089: 1954: 1897: 1853: 1531: 1473: 1403: 1333: 1223: 4751:

By the way, it's another known and similar fact (also Cavalieri, I think, but maybe more easily

4032: 3877: 2149: 4961: 4274: 4223: 3962: 3801: 3477: 3372: 3137: 3066: 3018: 2977: 2724: 2620:

Very wise. I verify sources as a hobby. This one is intriguing, but I suspect demoralizing.

2221:, I am proposing adding additional text to the article, perhaps in a new section, please see 3282:

Purging the server cache works, but it's suddenly needing to be done with unusual frequency.

4930:(the same questions are asked everywhere...) I opened a (more or less) random volume of the 4106: 4076: 3770: 3756: 3327: 3214: 3086: 2621: 2594: 2561: 2517: 2416: 2392: 2324: 2255: 2162:

All these other Knowledge Math gurus already knew about Rick's MHP article Ownership issues!

1981: 1775: 1690: 1675: 1600: 1445: 1221: 1219: 39: 4770:

On a related topic, don't they teach geometry in high school any more? Our article titled

4354:

That is, he wants to insert manual line breaks in equations, then correct the spacing with

4095: 4060: 3723: 3531: 3346: 3300: 3103: 2274: 2226: 2058:

and increased respectability of the encyclopedia since the guidelines were first drafted.

1651: 1437: 1391: 1329: 2952:. The addition of this template to an article also has the side-effect of adding it to 5055: 4884: 4863: 4848: 4806: 4581: 4249: 4231: 4180: 3932: 3912: 3668: 3411: 3394: 2549:

I think many of the claimed citations are not reliable sources, but enough of them are.

2483: 1718: 1627: 1423: 1376: 1311: 4794: 1495:

As for R.H., I personally think it is far from that state, but see my proposal below.

5074: 5001: 4990: 4708: 3579: 3546: 3457: 3403: 3199: 3111: 3056: 2996: 2961: 2652: 2362: 2198: 2118: 2085: 2047: 2023: 1950: 1893: 1849: 1710: 1559: 1518: 1485: 1288: 1270: 5029: 4923: 4919: 4907: 4798: 4727:

I wasn't checking very carefully what proof techniques they used, but Howard Eves'

4270: 4168: 4131: 3560: 3368: 3133: 2084:

Viewed by themselves, I think Rick's edits today are indicative of such a problem.

1296: 1281: 1277: 5020:(diff) 01:39, 25 May 2006 . . Akriasas (Talk | contribs | block) (created article) 4171:

does not seem to notice the damaged spacing. (See, for example, his comment on

3504: 3126: 2513: 2412: 2388: 2320: 2251: 1977: 1771: 1686: 1671: 1441: 5008:(diff) 18:27, 4 November 2007 . . Parslad (Talk | contribs | block) (899 bytes) 4673:

does it the same way Devlin does (did they get it from Devlin? If you look at

4194:

allow line-breaking by use of the "align" environment. That's what I did with

3482:

A locally path-connected space is path-connected if and only if it is connected

4701: 4217:

line-breaking. That is, in some sense, the ultimate progenitor of this issue.

4091: 2138:

Here's where Rick first asked for assistance to aid in Resolving our Conflict.

5028:

Deleted for lack of an assertion of notabilityat 18:34 on 4 November 2007 by

5011:(diff) 21:16, 21 June 2007 . . Kane5187 (Talk | contribs | block) (888 bytes) 4900:, and why the question of "which integration theory is used ?" is irrelevant. 3363:

No, I think we do not need it. All this content and more appears already in

2591:

WT:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination)#Reference list

1796:

I'll apologize to Mr. Eppstein in advance for furthering the discussion here.

1465:

has been nominated for A-class. Interested parties please leave comments at

4915: 4880: 4802: 4670: 4577: 4245: 4227: 4176: 3928: 3908: 3664: 3407: 3390: 4847:

Overall, I was just curious to hear other peoples thoughts on the subject.

3468:

It might be considered as a specific way, proper to mathematics, to ensure

3430:? I removed two of the lemmas from there since they were better covered in 1467:

Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Maximum spacing estimation

2131:

This is the original post from the Monty Hall Problem talk page, verbatim:

4986: 4841: 4704: 3453: 3115: 3052: 2992: 2957: 2358: 2114: 2043: 1555: 1514: 1481: 4911: 2247: 2060:

If you know it would be possible to give references, then provide some!

4464:

It does not work so well when you try to break along a math operator:

2007:

are covered perfectly well by general references instead of footnotes.

4771: 1814:

It goes on from there. Please read my 'Conventional Wisdom' section.

4728: 1478:

Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Riemann hypothesis

4248:

that these changes should be reverted, the do more harm the good.

4774:

derives the volume of the sphere only by calculating integrals.

2223:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or unconditional, once again

2077:

Alleged WP:Ownership Violation on the Monty Hall Problem Article

4198:. I don't know if that addresses "Wikid77"'s concerns or not. 3472:. This is not encyclopedic in its own way, but a mention like " 4135: 2681:. This appears to be a draft of an expansion of the article. 2587:

WP:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination)

2150:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics

1224: 33: 3524:

how can we include it (unconditionally) in this encyclopedia?

3197:

Knowledge:WikiProject Featured articles/Science FAC symposium

2552:

I think a journal is independent of its contributing authors.

3741:

prerequisites, but the details are usually not so valuable.

4926:" which is not always obvious. For a similar discussion on 3927:

on my own LaTeX installation it's not ugly like the above.

3034:

Knowledge talk:Make technical articles accessible/Archive 1

1646:

possible please make some sort of comment in the thread at

1539:

the main page. Who is willing to join in into that effort?

1297:

Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

3248:

OK, never mind. I purged the server cache. That worked.

2696:

There's some material on circles with imaginary radius in

1579:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard#Boubaker polynomials

4602:

Radius-invariance of the volume of a band around a sphere

4596:

Radius-invariance of the volume of a band around a sphere

2972:

have an especially difficult time with typeset formulas.

2100:

well-meaning but less than well-informed contributions.

4793:? The result for an annulus can be see as obvious from 4674: 4090:

settings seem to worsen this slight slant incredibly.--

3426:

On a closely related subject, can we do something with

2217:

In hopes of ending a continuing series of arguments at

1971:

Policy on references/citations in math related articles

1554:

If the deadline is October, then I can lend a hand. --

2611:

thing. I've been steering well clear for a while now.

2441:

are regrettably probably necessary, an article called

4550: 4549: 4514: 4513: 4473: 4472: 4439: 4438: 4409: 4408: 4368: 4367: 4316: 4315: 4286: 4285: 4035: 4009: 3989: 3965: 3880: 3854: 3828: 3804: 3795:

Is it just me or you also see the difference between

2758: 4222:

Wikid77 has attempted to respond to our concerns at

4213:

I failed to be clear. TeX offers no facilities for

3036:, it looks like this template was once mentioned in 1624:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Richard's principle

4557: 4536: 4498: 4452: 4425: 4393: 4329: 4302: 4051: 4021: 3995: 3975: 3896: 3866: 3834: 3814: 2937: 2453:— whether the Monty Hall problem should have even 1995:. I think that's the most specific thing we have. 4932:Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its applications 4629:Is there a more efficient title for the article? 4273:seems to discuss things only on his talk page. 1390:OK, so is this actually related to the stuff at 4729:Two Surprising Theorems on Cavalieri Congruence 3217:I've been seeing this for the past hour or so: 4224:User_talk:Wikid77#Confusion_over_math_formulas 3324:Proofs of theorems relating to connected space 1715:talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems/Arguments 4669:Devlin does this by a cumbersome method, and 3153:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics/Conventions 2186:Glkanter (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC) 1232:This page has archives. Sections older than 57: 8: 3474:Otter Example if.in, retrieved on 2007-09-21 2950:Knowledge:Make_technical_articles_accessible 2679:User:Paul Murray/Geometry of Complex Numbers 1668:Talk:Monty Hall problem#Glkanter's objection 1648:talk:Monty Hall problem#Glkanter's objection 1614: 3587:Would you agree that the introduction of 1472:Also, A-class review is still ongoing for 64: 50: 4548: 4512: 4471: 4437: 4407: 4366: 4314: 4284: 4034: 4008: 3988: 3964: 3879: 3853: 3827: 3803: 3129:. Perhaps it could have its own article? 2926: 2913: 2883: 2869: 2868: 2845: 2822: 2799: 2776: 2762: 2761: 2757: 1348:other consequences he finds unattractive. 4044: 4039: 3971: 3966: 3889: 3884: 3810: 3805: 2437:To be honest, while I think things like 1363:, if nothing else, is original research. 4572:\displaystyle X + Y = A +</math: --> 4140:Knowledge:Manual of Style (mathematics) 3486:Glasgow is the largest city in Scotland 3040:but was removed because it was stupid. 2213:Proposed addition to Monty Hall problem 1400:Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis 1276:Milestones could include the number of 88: 4795:a VISUAL Approach to CALCULUS problems 2449:, but at least somewhere in the border 2443:introduction to the Monty Hall problem 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Mathematics 5081:WikiProject Mathematics archives/2009 4600:I've just created the article titled 4569:Here the second line is generated by 4499:{\displaystyle \displaystyle X+Y=A+9} 4394:{\displaystyle \displaystyle X+Y=A+9} 3038:WP:Make technical articles accessible 1914:Please let's keep this discussion on 1359:. Therefore it must be deleted; the 7: 4537:{\displaystyle \displaystyle X+Y=A+} 3147:Reminder: We have a conventions page 5054:has been proposed for deletion via 4617:Which articles should link to this? 4346:\displaystyle X + Y =</math: --> 1284:or articles covered by the project. 4835:don't clarify the theorems greatly 4426:{\displaystyle \displaystyle X+Y=} 4303:{\displaystyle \displaystyle X+Y=} 4022:{\displaystyle a\Longrightarrow b} 3867:{\displaystyle a\Longrightarrow b} 2439:introduction to general relativity 1597:old discussion at this wikiproject 45:WikiProject Mathematics archives ( 32: 4453:{\displaystyle \displaystyle A+9} 4348:\displaystyle A + 9</math: --> 4330:{\displaystyle \displaystyle A+9} 3698:truth, into a truth that is also 3557:double counting (proof technique) 3432:Birkhoff's representation theorem 3389:I have proposed it for deletion. 2747:Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion 1236:may be automatically archived by 3996:{\displaystyle \Longrightarrow } 3835:{\displaystyle \Longrightarrow } 1260: 38: 4823:Fundamental theorem of calculus 4558:{\displaystyle \displaystyle 9} 4173:Talk:Matrix normal distribution 4277:formatting things as follows: 4041: 4013: 3990: 3968: 3943:Same here. Looks like a bug. 3886: 3858: 3829: 3807: 2677:....and now I find this page: 1993:Scientific citation guidelines 1: 5067:07:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC) 5042:06:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC) 4995:19:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 4976:18:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 4951:16:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 4889:10:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 4872:09:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 4857:09:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 4811:15:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 4784:06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 4765:04:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 4741:04:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 4713:08:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 4687:04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 4661:01:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 4642:00:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 4623:American Mathematical Monthly 4586:13:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 4574:\displaystyle 9</math: --> 4258:14:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 4236:13:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 4208:22:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 4185:18:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 4163:understand in the slightest). 4157:18:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 4115:19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 4100:19:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 4085:19:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 4069:13:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 3953:05:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 3937:02:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 3917:17:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 3779:16:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 3765:01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC) 3751:18:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 3732:05:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 3720:proof of Bertrand's postulate 3673:02:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 3583:02:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 3573:23:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 3550:05:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 3540:04:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 3499:23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 3463:22:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 3444:22:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 3416:02:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 3399:21:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 3377:00:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 3355:23:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 3336:23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 3309:16:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC) 3292:16:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC) 3258:18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 3241:18:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 3203:13:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 3181:17:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC) 3165:13:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 3151:There are a few proposals at 3142:11:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 3121:I note also that the link to 3093:03:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 3081:02:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC) 3061:06:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 3045:08:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 3023:03:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 3001:03:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 2982:03:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 2966:03:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 2729:03:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 2710:02:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 2691:02:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 2673:02:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC) 2630:03:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 2616:03:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 2603:03:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 2580:03:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 2570:03:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 2522:17:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 2492:21:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2421:18:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2397:18:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2367:12:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 2329:18:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2306:23:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 2285:20:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 2260:20:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 2237:19:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 2207:03:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2123:03:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 2107:21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 2094:20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 2069:21:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC) 2053:21:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 2000:20:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 1986:19:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC) 1959:22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 1928:21:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 1902:21:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 1867:22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 1858:22:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 1780:21:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC) 1530: 1291:will do all of the hard work. 3065:I'd like to see it deleted. 2741:I ran across this template, 2536:Check references at AfD talk 2345:What you're suggesting is a 1727:20:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC) 1695:20:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC) 1680:20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC) 1662:19:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC) 1636:09:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) 1609:20:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC) 1591:16:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1564:22:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC) 1549:13:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1523:22:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC) 1505:13:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1490:03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1450:19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC) 1432:00:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1412:00:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1385:23:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1375:, not even as a redirect. -- 1342:23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 1315:22:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 4052:{\displaystyle a\implies b} 3923:I see it too. When I type 3897:{\displaystyle a\implies b} 3428:Distributive lattice/Proofs 2466:Boolean algebra (structure) 5097: 5052:Inertia tensor of triangle 5047:Inertia tensor of triangle 4821:I was recently looking at 4134:has been "fixing" various 4074:a \implies b</math: --> 4003:as a broken one, and both 1463:Maximum spacing estimation 4789:On that note how about a 4073:Whoa, I see <math: --> 3983:as the proper character, 3976:{\displaystyle \implies } 3815:{\displaystyle \implies } 3625:), the universe function 3476:" (random quotation from 1319: 4797:and then if you look at 4196:logarithmic distribution 4145:logarithmic distribution 1622:Feel free to comment at 4832:are not especially easy 4573: <math: --> 4347: <math: --> 3470:Knowledge:Verifiability 3365:locally connected space 2462:Boolean algebra (logic) 2244:Introduction to entropy 2219:talk:Monty Hall problem 1916:Talk:Monty Hall problem 1324:What should we make of 1249:Milestone Announcements 4559: 4538: 4500: 4454: 4427: 4395: 4341:which is generated by 4331: 4304: 4127:"Fixing" math displays 4053: 4023: 3997: 3977: 3898: 3868: 3836: 3816: 3715:Connected space/Proofs 3316:Connected space/Proofs 2939: 1570:Ongoing discussion re 1239:Lowercase sigmabot III 4938:) at a random page : 4560: 4539: 4501: 4455: 4428: 4396: 4332: 4305: 4244:I tend to agree with 4054: 4024: 3998: 3978: 3899: 3869: 3837: 3817: 3589:Grothendieck universe 3189:Science FAC symposium 2940: 2743:Template:Math2english 2655:has proposed merging 4547: 4511: 4470: 4436: 4406: 4365: 4313: 4283: 4033: 4007: 3987: 3963: 3878: 3852: 3826: 3802: 2756: 2545:of them is trivial. 1572:Boubaker polynomials 1366:What to do with the 4791:Proof without words 4649:Napkin ring problem 2954:category: technical 2271:Boy or Girl paradox 1641:MH problem argument 1616:Richard's principle 1373:Richard's principle 1357:Richard's principle 1353:Richard's principle 1326:Richard's principle 1320:Richard's principle 4898:mean value theorem 4555: 4554: 4534: 4533: 4496: 4495: 4450: 4449: 4423: 4422: 4391: 4390: 4327: 4326: 4300: 4299: 4049: 4045: 4040: 4019: 3993: 3973: 3972: 3967: 3894: 3890: 3885: 3864: 3832: 3812: 3811: 3806: 3515:the author's word. 2935: 2698:Apollonian circles 2661:inversive geometry 2657:generalised circle 2648:Generalised circle 2575:What AfD is this? 1705:to learn that :-). 1618:is up for deletion 1599:, for reference -- 1532:Riemann hypothesis 1474:Riemann hypothesis 1458:A class nomination 1271:announcements page 4974: 4936:Special functions 4651:. Any thoughts? — 3478:First-order logic 3461: 3079: 2901: 2877: 2863: 2840: 2817: 2794: 2770: 2760: 2283: 2235: 2051: 1660: 1308: 1307: 1304: 1303: 1246: 1245: 95:Nov 2002–Dec 2003 5088: 4964: 4575: 4564: 4562: 4561: 4556: 4543: 4541: 4540: 4535: 4505: 4503: 4502: 4497: 4459: 4457: 4456: 4451: 4432: 4430: 4429: 4424: 4400: 4398: 4397: 4392: 4357: 4349: 4336: 4334: 4333: 4328: 4309: 4307: 4306: 4301: 4058: 4056: 4055: 4050: 4028: 4026: 4025: 4020: 4002: 4000: 3999: 3994: 3982: 3980: 3979: 3974: 3926: 3903: 3901: 3900: 3895: 3873: 3871: 3870: 3865: 3841: 3839: 3838: 3833: 3821: 3819: 3818: 3813: 3743:Charles Matthews 3451: 3266:Failure to parse 3215:power of a point 3209:Failure to parse 3187:Notification of 3173:Charles Matthews 3069: 2944: 2942: 2941: 2936: 2931: 2930: 2921: 2920: 2902: 2900: 2892: 2884: 2879: 2878: 2870: 2864: 2862: 2854: 2846: 2841: 2839: 2831: 2823: 2818: 2816: 2808: 2800: 2795: 2793: 2785: 2777: 2772: 2771: 2763: 2759: 2355:misunderstanding 2277: 2229: 2041: 2028: 2022: 1654: 1534:' 150th birthday 1436:About expanding 1264: 1257: 1256: 1253: 1252: 1241: 1225: 66: 59: 52: 42: 34: 5096: 5095: 5091: 5090: 5089: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5071: 5070: 5049: 5005: 4819: 4598: 4570: 4545: 4544: 4509: 4508: 4468: 4467: 4434: 4433: 4404: 4403: 4363: 4362: 4355: 4344: 4311: 4310: 4281: 4280: 4129: 4031: 4030: 4005: 4004: 3985: 3984: 3961: 3960: 3925:\Longrightarrow 3924: 3876: 3875: 3850: 3849: 3824: 3823: 3800: 3799: 3793: 3319: 3268: 3211: 3192: 3149: 3107: 3104:Continuous game 2922: 2909: 2893: 2885: 2855: 2847: 2832: 2824: 2809: 2801: 2786: 2778: 2754: 2753: 2739: 2650: 2538: 2514:Boris Tsirelson 2413:Boris Tsirelson 2389:Boris Tsirelson 2321:Boris Tsirelson 2252:Boris Tsirelson 2215: 2079: 2026: 2020: 1973: 1772:Boris Tsirelson 1687:Boris Tsirelson 1672:Boris Tsirelson 1643: 1620: 1575: 1541:Jakob.scholbach 1536: 1497:Jakob.scholbach 1460: 1442:Boris Tsirelson 1438:impredicativity 1392:impredicativity 1330:impredicativity 1322: 1300: 1251: 1237: 1226: 1220: 1211: 1097: 87: 86: 73: 70: 30: 29: 28: 12: 11: 5: 5094: 5092: 5084: 5083: 5073: 5072: 5048: 5045: 5026: 5025: 5022: 5021: 5018: 5015: 5012: 5009: 5004: 4999: 4998: 4997: 4981: 4980: 4979: 4978: 4954: 4953: 4943:French Tourist 4904: 4901: 4892: 4891: 4875: 4874: 4837: 4836: 4833: 4830: 4818: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4799:Sphere picture 4768: 4767: 4757:David Eppstein 4748: 4747: 4746: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4733:David Eppstein 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4692: 4691: 4690: 4689: 4664: 4663: 4653:David Eppstein 4631: 4630: 4627: 4618: 4609: 4608: 4597: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4588: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4553: 4532: 4529: 4526: 4523: 4520: 4517: 4506: 4494: 4491: 4488: 4485: 4482: 4479: 4476: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4448: 4445: 4442: 4421: 4418: 4415: 4412: 4401: 4389: 4386: 4383: 4380: 4377: 4374: 4371: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4325: 4322: 4319: 4298: 4295: 4292: 4289: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4239: 4238: 4219: 4218: 4188: 4187: 4165: 4164: 4128: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4048: 4043: 4038: 4018: 4015: 4012: 3992: 3970: 3956: 3955: 3940: 3939: 3905: 3904: 3893: 3888: 3883: 3863: 3860: 3857: 3843: 3842: 3831: 3809: 3792: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3735: 3734: 3710: 3709: 3704: 3703: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3565:David Eppstein 3527: 3526: 3525: 3516: 3512: 3491:French Tourist 3447: 3446: 3436:David Eppstein 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3358: 3357: 3318: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3298:</math: --> 3280: 3279: 3267: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3230: 3229: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3210: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3191: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3148: 3145: 3106: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 2985: 2984: 2946: 2945: 2934: 2929: 2925: 2919: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2905: 2899: 2896: 2891: 2888: 2882: 2876: 2873: 2867: 2861: 2858: 2853: 2850: 2844: 2838: 2835: 2830: 2827: 2821: 2815: 2812: 2807: 2804: 2798: 2792: 2789: 2784: 2781: 2775: 2769: 2766: 2738: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2713: 2712: 2702:David Eppstein 2649: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2554: 2553: 2550: 2537: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2480: 2476: 2469: 2458: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2378: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2263: 2262: 2214: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2192: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2180: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2168: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2133: 2132: 2127: 2110: 2109: 2078: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2033: 2030: 2017: 2009: 2008: 2003: 2002: 1991:There are the 1972: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1948: 1937: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1920:David Eppstein 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1732: 1730: 1729: 1706: 1650:? Thanks. -- 1642: 1639: 1619: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1583:David Eppstein 1574: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1535: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1508: 1507: 1459: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1419: 1388: 1387: 1364: 1349: 1321: 1318: 1306: 1305: 1302: 1301: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1285: 1274: 1265: 1250: 1247: 1244: 1243: 1231: 1228: 1227: 1222: 1218: 1216: 1213: 1212: 1210: 1209: 1154: 1098: 1096: 1095: 1040: 985: 930: 875: 820: 765: 710: 655: 600: 545: 490: 435: 380: 325: 270: 215: 160: 105: 84: 83: 82: 79: 78: 75: 74: 69: 68: 61: 54: 46: 43: 37: 31: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5093: 5082: 5079: 5078: 5076: 5069: 5068: 5064: 5060: 5057: 5053: 5046: 5044: 5043: 5039: 5035: 5034:Michael Hardy 5031: 5024: 5023: 5019: 5016: 5013: 5010: 5007: 5006: 5003: 5002:Ernst Snapper 5000: 4996: 4992: 4988: 4983: 4982: 4977: 4972: 4968: 4963: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4952: 4948: 4944: 4940: 4937: 4933: 4929: 4925: 4924:encyclopedias 4921: 4917: 4913: 4909: 4908:encyclopedias 4905: 4902: 4899: 4894: 4893: 4890: 4886: 4882: 4877: 4876: 4873: 4869: 4865: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4858: 4854: 4850: 4845: 4843: 4834: 4831: 4829:are not short 4828: 4827: 4826: 4824: 4816: 4812: 4808: 4804: 4800: 4796: 4792: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4781: 4777: 4776:Michael Hardy 4773: 4766: 4762: 4758: 4754: 4753:by Pythagoras 4750: 4749: 4742: 4738: 4734: 4730: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4714: 4710: 4706: 4702: 4698: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4688: 4684: 4680: 4679:Michael Hardy 4676: 4672: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4662: 4658: 4654: 4650: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4639: 4635: 4634:Michael Hardy 4628: 4625: 4624: 4619: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4603: 4595: 4587: 4583: 4579: 4571:<math: --> 4568: 4551: 4530: 4527: 4524: 4521: 4518: 4515: 4507: 4492: 4489: 4486: 4483: 4480: 4477: 4474: 4466: 4465: 4463: 4446: 4443: 4440: 4419: 4416: 4413: 4410: 4402: 4387: 4384: 4381: 4378: 4375: 4372: 4369: 4361: 4360: 4353: 4345:<math: --> 4343: 4342: 4340: 4323: 4320: 4317: 4296: 4293: 4290: 4287: 4279: 4278: 4276: 4272: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4221: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4200:Michael Hardy 4197: 4193: 4186: 4182: 4178: 4174: 4170: 4167: 4166: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4149:Michael Hardy 4146: 4141: 4137: 4133: 4126: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4097: 4093: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4066: 4062: 4046: 4036: 4016: 4010: 3958: 3957: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3945:Michael Hardy 3942: 3941: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3891: 3881: 3861: 3855: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845:what's about 3798: 3797: 3796: 3790: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3721: 3716: 3712: 3711: 3706: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3692: 3688: 3687: 3674: 3670: 3666: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3590: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3581: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3548: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3528: 3522: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3508: 3506: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3459: 3455: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3404:User:Dcoetzee 3402: 3401: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3325: 3317: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3284:Michael Hardy 3278: 3277: 3276: 3273: 3265: 3259: 3255: 3251: 3250:Michael Hardy 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3233:Michael Hardy 3228: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3216: 3208: 3204: 3201: 3198: 3194: 3193: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3146: 3144: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3130: 3128: 3124: 3123:discrete game 3119: 3117: 3113: 3112:Timeless Test 3105: 3102: 3094: 3091: 3088: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3077: 3073: 3068: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2932: 2927: 2923: 2917: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2903: 2897: 2894: 2889: 2886: 2880: 2874: 2871: 2865: 2859: 2856: 2851: 2848: 2842: 2836: 2833: 2828: 2825: 2819: 2813: 2810: 2805: 2802: 2796: 2790: 2787: 2782: 2779: 2773: 2767: 2764: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2748: 2744: 2736: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2683:Michael Hardy 2680: 2675: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2665:Michael Hardy 2662: 2658: 2654: 2653:user:Jim.belk 2647: 2641: 2640: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2578: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2557: 2551: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2544: 2535: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2474: 2470: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2351:don't believe 2348: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2298:Martin Hogbin 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2286: 2281: 2276: 2272: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2233: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2151: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2125: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2108: 2105: 2104: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2082: 2076: 2070: 2067: 2066: 2061: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2049: 2045: 2039: 2034: 2031: 2025: 2018: 2014: 2013: 2011: 2010: 2005: 2004: 2001: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1970: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1868: 1865: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1707: 1704: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1682: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1664: 1663: 1658: 1653: 1649: 1640: 1638: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1617: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1533: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1470: 1468: 1464: 1457: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1420: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1404:Michael Hardy 1401: 1397: 1393: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1369: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1334:Michael Hardy 1331: 1327: 1317: 1316: 1313: 1299: 1298: 1290: 1286: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1263: 1259: 1258: 1255: 1254: 1248: 1240: 1235: 1230: 1229: 1215: 1214: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1159: 1155: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1104: 1100: 1099: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1045: 1041: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 999: 995: 991: 990: 986: 984: 980: 976: 972: 968: 964: 960: 956: 952: 948: 944: 940: 936: 935: 931: 929: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 897: 893: 889: 885: 881: 880: 876: 874: 870: 866: 862: 858: 854: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 825: 821: 819: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 770: 766: 764: 760: 756: 752: 748: 744: 740: 736: 732: 728: 724: 720: 716: 715: 711: 709: 705: 701: 697: 693: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 661: 660: 656: 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 634: 630: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 606: 605: 601: 599: 595: 591: 587: 583: 579: 575: 571: 567: 563: 559: 555: 551: 550: 546: 544: 540: 536: 532: 528: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 504: 500: 496: 495: 491: 489: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 457: 453: 449: 445: 441: 440: 436: 434: 430: 426: 422: 418: 414: 410: 406: 402: 398: 394: 390: 386: 385: 381: 379: 375: 371: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 330: 326: 324: 320: 316: 312: 308: 304: 300: 296: 292: 288: 284: 280: 276: 275: 271: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 225: 221: 220: 216: 214: 210: 206: 202: 198: 194: 190: 186: 182: 178: 174: 170: 166: 165: 161: 159: 155: 151: 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 111: 110: 106: 104: 100: 96: 92: 89: 85:Earlier years 81: 80: 77: 76: 72: 67: 62: 60: 55: 53: 48: 47: 41: 36: 35: 27: 23: 19: 5059:76.66.193.90 5050: 5030:user:Sandahl 5027: 4962:CRGreathouse 4935: 4934:(volume 71, 4931: 4927: 4920:encyclopedia 4846: 4838: 4820: 4769: 4632: 4621: 4611: 4610: 4599: 4271:User:Wikid77 4214: 4191: 4189: 4169:User:Wikid77 4132:user:Wikid77 4130: 3906: 3844: 3794: 3699: 3695: 3690: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3521:verification 3520: 3485: 3481: 3473: 3448: 3342: 3320: 3281: 3271: 3270:Wait! This 3269: 3231: 3212: 3150: 3131: 3120: 3108: 3067:CRGreathouse 3031: 2947: 2740: 2737:Math2English 2676: 2651: 2608: 2558: 2555: 2542: 2539: 2472: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2377: 2354: 2350: 2216: 2191: 2179: 2167: 2126: 2111: 2103:Geometry guy 2101: 2083: 2080: 2065:Geometry guy 2063: 2059: 1974: 1936: 1731: 1702: 1683: 1665: 1644: 1621: 1576: 1537: 1471: 1461: 1418:enumeration. 1399: 1395: 1389: 1372: 1367: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1323: 1309: 1295: 1233: 1156: 1101: 1042: 987: 932: 877: 822: 767: 712: 657: 602: 547: 492: 437: 382: 337: 327: 272: 217: 162: 107: 103:Sep–Dec 2004 99:Jan–Aug 2004 44: 4275:He suggests 4107:JackSchmidt 4077:JackSchmidt 3791:Implication 3771:Itsmejudith 3757:Itsmejudith 3341:Do we even 3328:Itsmejudith 3127:Game Theory 3087:Paul August 2622:JackSchmidt 2595:JackSchmidt 2562:JackSchmidt 1601:Enric Naval 1394:? I think 4916:gazetteers 4356:  4061:Shreevatsa 3724:Ryan Reich 3700:subjective 3532:Ryan Reich 3347:Ryan Reich 3301:Shreevatsa 3157:Hans Adler 3132:Cheers! -- 3125:points to 3042:Algebraist 2613:Algebraist 2577:Algebraist 2275:Rick Block 2227:Rick Block 1997:Algebraist 1864:Algebraist 1666:You mean, 1652:Rick Block 91:Motivation 4864:JRSpriggs 4849:Thenub314 4675:this edit 4671:MathWorld 4612:Concerns: 4250:Thenub314 4215:automatic 3696:objective 3530:internet. 3484:than for 2484:Trovatore 2250:, etc.)? 2029:template. 1719:Trovatore 1628:Trovatore 1424:Trovatore 1377:Trovatore 1312:Jarry1250 5075:Category 4912:almanacs 4842:0.999... 3713:Anyway, 3580:Dcoetzee 3547:Dcoetzee 3511:context. 3200:Ling.Nut 3116:marriage 2457:article. 2347:POV fork 2199:Glkanter 2086:Glkanter 1951:Glkanter 1894:Glkanter 1850:Glkanter 1749:article. 24:‎ | 20:‎ | 5056:WP:PROD 3369:Plclark 3134:Dweller 3085:Agree. 3015:Acannas 2974:Acannas 2721:Acannas 2248:Entropy 2040:— Carl 1739:Truth'? 1476:. See 1368:content 1234:15 days 22:Archive 4914:, and 4817:Proofs 4772:sphere 3959:I see 2543:enough 1978:kilbad 1711:WP:IAR 4092:LutzL 3561:WP:OR 3032:From 2745:, on 2659:into 2451:lands 1832:make. 16:< 5063:talk 5038:talk 4991:talk 4947:talk 4885:talk 4881:Dmcq 4868:talk 4853:talk 4807:talk 4803:Dmcq 4780:talk 4761:talk 4737:talk 4709:talk 4683:talk 4657:talk 4638:talk 4582:talk 4578:Ozob 4254:talk 4246:Ozob 4232:talk 4228:Ozob 4204:talk 4192:does 4190:TeX 4181:talk 4177:Ozob 4153:talk 4111:talk 4096:talk 4081:talk 4065:talk 4029:and 3949:talk 3933:talk 3929:Ozob 3913:talk 3909:Igny 3874:and 3822:and 3775:talk 3761:talk 3747:talk 3728:talk 3669:talk 3665:Ozob 3569:talk 3536:talk 3505:WP:V 3495:talk 3458:talk 3440:talk 3412:talk 3408:Ozob 3395:talk 3391:Ozob 3373:talk 3351:talk 3343:need 3332:talk 3305:talk 3288:talk 3254:talk 3237:talk 3195:See 3177:talk 3161:talk 3138:talk 3118:). 3057:talk 3019:talk 2997:talk 2978:talk 2962:talk 2725:talk 2706:talk 2687:talk 2669:talk 2626:talk 2609:that 2607:Oh, 2599:talk 2589:and 2566:talk 2518:talk 2488:talk 2473:five 2464:and 2447:line 2417:talk 2393:talk 2363:talk 2325:talk 2302:talk 2280:talk 2256:talk 2246:and 2232:talk 2203:talk 2119:talk 2090:talk 2048:talk 2024:fact 1982:talk 1955:talk 1924:talk 1898:talk 1854:talk 1776:talk 1723:talk 1717:. -- 1691:talk 1676:talk 1657:talk 1632:talk 1626:. -- 1605:talk 1587:talk 1577:See 1560:talk 1545:talk 1519:talk 1501:talk 1486:talk 1446:talk 1428:talk 1408:talk 1396:that 1381:talk 1361:name 1338:talk 1158:2024 1103:2023 1044:2022 989:2021 934:2020 879:2019 824:2018 769:2017 714:2016 659:2015 604:2014 549:2013 494:2012 439:2011 384:2010 329:2009 274:2008 219:2007 164:2006 109:2005 26:2009 4987:C S 4928::fr 4705:C S 4136:TeX 3454:CBM 3367:. 3213:At 3114:or 3053:C S 2993:C S 2958:C S 2455:one 2359:C S 2115:C S 2044:CBM 2016:it. 1581:. — 1556:C S 1515:C S 1482:C S 1289:bot 1282:GAs 1278:FAs 1207:Dec 1203:Nov 1199:Oct 1195:Sep 1191:Aug 1187:Jul 1183:Jun 1179:May 1175:Apr 1171:Mar 1167:Feb 1163:Jan 1152:Dec 1148:Nov 1144:Oct 1140:Sep 1136:Aug 1132:Jul 1128:Jun 1124:May 1120:Apr 1116:Mar 1112:Feb 1108:Jan 1093:Dec 1089:Nov 1085:Oct 1081:Sep 1077:Aug 1073:Jul 1069:Jun 1065:May 1061:Apr 1057:Mar 1053:Feb 1049:Jan 1038:Dec 1034:Nov 1030:Oct 1026:Sep 1022:Aug 1018:Jul 1014:Jun 1010:May 1006:Apr 1002:Mar 998:Feb 994:Jan 983:Dec 979:Nov 975:Oct 971:Sep 967:Aug 963:Jul 959:Jun 955:May 951:Apr 947:Mar 943:Feb 939:Jan 928:Dec 924:Nov 920:Oct 916:Sep 912:Aug 908:Jul 904:Jun 900:May 896:Apr 892:Mar 888:Feb 884:Jan 873:Dec 869:Nov 865:Oct 861:Sep 857:Aug 853:Jul 849:Jun 845:May 841:Apr 837:Mar 833:Feb 829:Jan 818:Dec 814:Nov 810:Oct 806:Sep 802:Aug 798:Jul 794:Jun 790:May 786:Apr 782:Mar 778:Feb 774:Jan 763:Dec 759:Nov 755:Oct 751:Sep 747:Aug 743:Jul 739:Jun 735:May 731:Apr 727:Mar 723:Feb 719:Jan 708:Dec 704:Nov 700:Oct 696:Sep 692:Aug 688:Jul 684:Jun 680:May 676:Apr 672:Mar 668:Feb 664:Jan 653:Dec 649:Nov 645:Oct 641:Sep 637:Aug 633:Jul 629:Jun 625:May 621:Apr 617:Mar 613:Feb 609:Jan 598:Dec 594:Nov 590:Oct 586:Sep 582:Aug 578:Jul 574:Jun 570:May 566:Apr 562:Mar 558:Feb 554:Jan 543:Dec 539:Nov 535:Oct 531:Sep 527:Aug 523:Jul 519:Jun 515:May 511:Apr 507:Mar 503:Feb 499:Jan 488:Dec 484:Nov 480:Oct 476:Sep 472:Aug 468:Jul 464:Jun 460:May 456:Apr 452:Mar 448:Feb 444:Jan 433:Dec 429:Nov 425:Oct 421:Sep 417:Aug 413:Jul 409:Jun 405:May 401:Apr 397:Mar 393:Feb 389:Jan 378:Dec 374:Nov 370:Oct 366:Sep 362:Aug 358:Jul 354:Jun 350:May 346:Apr 342:Mar 338:Feb 334:Jan 323:Dec 319:Nov 315:Oct 311:Sep 307:Aug 303:Jul 299:Jun 295:May 291:Apr 287:Mar 283:Feb 279:Jan 268:Dec 264:Nov 260:Oct 256:Sep 252:Aug 248:Jul 244:Jun 240:May 236:Apr 232:Mar 228:Feb 224:Jan 213:Dec 209:Nov 205:Oct 201:Sep 197:Aug 193:Jul 189:Jun 185:May 181:Apr 177:Mar 173:Feb 169:Jan 158:Dec 154:Nov 150:Oct 146:Sep 142:Aug 138:Jul 134:Jun 130:May 126:Apr 122:Mar 118:Feb 114:Jan 5077:: 5065:) 5040:) 4993:) 4969:| 4949:) 4910:, 4887:) 4870:) 4855:) 4809:) 4782:) 4763:) 4739:) 4711:) 4685:) 4659:) 4640:) 4584:) 4256:) 4234:) 4226:. 4206:) 4183:) 4155:) 4113:) 4098:) 4083:) 4067:) 4042:⟹ 4014:⟹ 3991:⟹ 3969:⟹ 3951:) 3935:) 3919:) 3915:) 3887:⟹ 3859:⟹ 3830:⟹ 3808:⟹ 3777:) 3763:) 3749:) 3730:) 3691:as 3671:) 3633:, 3571:) 3538:) 3497:) 3456:· 3442:) 3414:) 3397:) 3375:) 3353:) 3334:) 3307:) 3290:) 3272:is 3256:) 3239:) 3179:) 3163:) 3140:) 3074:| 3059:) 3051:-- 3021:) 2999:) 2991:-- 2980:) 2964:) 2915:− 2907:ℓ 2904:⋅ 2898:θ 2875:˙ 2872:θ 2866:⋅ 2860:θ 2829:θ 2820:⋅ 2814:θ 2768:˙ 2727:) 2708:) 2689:) 2671:) 2628:) 2601:) 2568:) 2520:) 2490:) 2419:) 2395:) 2365:) 2327:) 2304:) 2258:) 2205:) 2121:) 2092:) 2046:· 2027:}} 2021:{{ 1984:) 1957:) 1926:) 1900:) 1856:) 1778:) 1725:) 1703:me 1693:) 1678:) 1634:) 1607:) 1589:) 1562:) 1547:) 1521:) 1503:) 1488:) 1469:. 1448:) 1430:) 1410:) 1383:) 1340:) 1332:. 1280:, 1205:· 1201:· 1197:· 1193:· 1189:· 1185:· 1181:· 1177:· 1173:· 1169:· 1165:· 1161:: 1150:· 1146:· 1142:· 1138:· 1134:· 1130:· 1126:· 1122:· 1118:· 1114:· 1110:· 1106:: 1091:· 1087:· 1083:· 1079:· 1075:· 1071:· 1067:· 1063:· 1059:· 1055:· 1051:· 1047:: 1036:· 1032:· 1028:· 1024:· 1020:· 1016:· 1012:· 1008:· 1004:· 1000:· 996:· 992:: 981:· 977:· 973:· 969:· 965:· 961:· 957:· 953:· 949:· 945:· 941:· 937:: 926:· 922:· 918:· 914:· 910:· 906:· 902:· 898:· 894:· 890:· 886:· 882:: 871:· 867:· 863:· 859:· 855:· 851:· 847:· 843:· 839:· 835:· 831:· 827:: 816:· 812:· 808:· 804:· 800:· 796:· 792:· 788:· 784:· 780:· 776:· 772:: 761:· 757:· 753:· 749:· 745:· 741:· 737:· 733:· 729:· 725:· 721:· 717:: 706:· 702:· 698:· 694:· 690:· 686:· 682:· 678:· 674:· 670:· 666:· 662:: 651:· 647:· 643:· 639:· 635:· 631:· 627:· 623:· 619:· 615:· 611:· 607:: 596:· 592:· 588:· 584:· 580:· 576:· 572:· 568:· 564:· 560:· 556:· 552:: 541:· 537:· 533:· 529:· 525:· 521:· 517:· 513:· 509:· 505:· 501:· 497:: 486:· 482:· 478:· 474:· 470:· 466:· 462:· 458:· 454:· 450:· 446:· 442:: 431:· 427:· 423:· 419:· 415:· 411:· 407:· 403:· 399:· 395:· 391:· 387:: 376:· 372:· 368:· 364:· 360:· 356:· 352:· 348:· 344:· 340:· 336:· 332:: 321:· 317:· 313:· 309:· 305:· 301:· 297:· 293:· 289:· 285:· 281:· 277:: 266:· 262:· 258:· 254:· 250:· 246:· 242:· 238:· 234:· 230:· 226:· 222:: 211:· 207:· 203:· 199:· 195:· 191:· 187:· 183:· 179:· 175:· 171:· 167:: 156:· 152:· 148:· 144:· 140:· 136:· 132:· 128:· 124:· 120:· 116:· 112:: 101:· 97:· 93:· 5061:( 5036:( 4989:( 4973:) 4971:c 4967:t 4965:( 4945:( 4883:( 4866:( 4851:( 4805:( 4778:( 4759:( 4735:( 4707:( 4681:( 4655:( 4636:( 4580:( 4552:9 4531:+ 4528:A 4525:= 4522:Y 4519:+ 4516:X 4493:9 4490:+ 4487:A 4484:= 4481:Y 4478:+ 4475:X 4447:9 4444:+ 4441:A 4420:= 4417:Y 4414:+ 4411:X 4388:9 4385:+ 4382:A 4379:= 4376:Y 4373:+ 4370:X 4324:9 4321:+ 4318:A 4297:= 4294:Y 4291:+ 4288:X 4252:( 4230:( 4202:( 4179:( 4151:( 4109:( 4094:( 4079:( 4063:( 4047:b 4037:a 4017:b 4011:a 3947:( 3931:( 3911:( 3907:( 3892:b 3882:a 3862:b 3856:a 3773:( 3759:( 3745:( 3726:( 3667:( 3635:u 3631:c 3627:u 3623:U 3621:( 3619:c 3567:( 3534:( 3493:( 3460:) 3452:( 3438:( 3410:( 3393:( 3371:( 3349:( 3330:( 3303:( 3286:( 3252:( 3235:( 3224:h 3175:( 3159:( 3136:( 3090:☎ 3078:) 3076:c 3072:t 3070:( 3055:( 3017:( 2995:( 2976:( 2960:( 2933:. 2928:2 2924:u 2918:2 2911:p 2895:d 2890:X 2887:d 2881:= 2857:d 2852:X 2849:d 2843:= 2837:t 2834:d 2826:d 2811:d 2806:X 2803:d 2797:= 2791:t 2788:d 2783:X 2780:d 2774:= 2765:X 2723:( 2704:( 2685:( 2667:( 2624:( 2597:( 2564:( 2516:( 2486:( 2415:( 2391:( 2361:( 2323:( 2300:( 2282:) 2278:( 2254:( 2234:) 2230:( 2201:( 2117:( 2088:( 2050:) 2042:( 1980:( 1953:( 1922:( 1896:( 1852:( 1774:( 1721:( 1689:( 1674:( 1659:) 1655:( 1630:( 1603:( 1585:( 1558:( 1543:( 1517:( 1499:( 1484:( 1444:( 1426:( 1406:( 1379:( 1336:( 1273:. 1242:. 71:) 65:e 58:t 51:v

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2009/Feb - Knowledge

Index