Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Flagging this update for attention. I think it satisfies WP:BASICMATH and - given the author's background - WP:RSSELF (also, a number of academic research mathematicians have already reacted approvingly), but it might be helpful for other experienced editors to join the discussion at Talk:Jacobian_conjecture#Apparently_disproved. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is the rare case, I think, where we probably should leave the statement in the article with a {{better source needed }} tag rather than deletion. It seems to me that this is indeed a counterexample to the conjecture, so if we leave it in for a few weeks better sources will be forthcoming, and this is a good service to likely readers when they come here looking to read up on the conjecture. I think it does not strictly fall within WP:CALC, but I think we should make a small exception here bearing in mind the recent Hannah Cairo debacle. Sławomir Biały (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree. Yes, this is original research that has not been regularly published. But we have to consider the reasons of Wikipedia policies.

The main reason for WP: No original research is that reliable sources are needed to judge the importance of a result. Here, there is no doubt on the importance of the result.

Another reason of the requirement of reliable sources is WP:Verifiability. Here, the verification falls under WP:CALC, since the verification that the counterexample is correct is a simple calculation.

So, this is a rare case for which the reasons behind the policies are satisfied, even if the policies are not formally satisfied. I think that this is for such rare cases that WP:IAR has been introduced.

Nevertheless, I agree that further sources are needed for understanding why the conjecture is false and which consequences has the existence of a counterexample. Also reliable sources would be useful to simplify the counterexample (for example, the exchange of x and z would make the counterexample clearer, by writing it as ⁠${\displaystyle x\to x+\cdots ,\quad y\to y+\cdots ,\quad z\to z+\cdots }${\displaystyle x\to x+\cdots ,\quad y\to y+\cdots ,\quad z\to z+\cdots }⁠, where the dots are sums of terms of degree at least 2). D.Lazard (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm not convinced this falls under WP:CALC. I'm not convinced it doesn't, either, but it is out of the regime where that is normally applied, which is stuff like converting Fahrenheit to Celsius. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I mean, it basically consists of a small number of calculations such as this one (to pick a concrete example from ):

Evaluate

${\displaystyle (1+xy)^{3}z+y^{2}(1+xy)(4+3xy)}${\displaystyle (1+xy)^{3}z+y^{2}(1+xy)(4+3xy)}

for

${\displaystyle x=0,y=0,z=-1/4}${\displaystyle x=0,y=0,z=-1/4}

and check that the result is ${\displaystyle -1/4}${\displaystyle -1/4}.

Personally I almost find that easier than converting Fahrenheit to Celsius ;-)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

In this type of example, it's also just fine to take the claim out from Wikipedia pending the inevitable follow-on sources a few days later. Wikipedia does not need to be the venue for breaking this kind of research before it has been discussed by reliable sources. –jacobolus (t) 07:26, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It needs a bit more than that. We need to calculate the Jacobean determinant, in particular that the Jacobian determinant is a non-zero constant, and, of course, we also need to evaluate the formula for ${\textstyle {\bigl (}1,-{\tfrac {3}{2}},{\tfrac {13}{2}}{\bigr )}}${\textstyle {\bigl (}1,-{\tfrac {3}{2}},{\tfrac {13}{2}}{\bigr )}}. Do Jacobean determinants fall under WP:CALC? I always need to check that I have added or subtracted 32 and multiplied or divided by 5/9 in the right order when converting temperatures by using the freezing and boiling points of water. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

What falls under WP:CALC is a matter of local consensus, and depends on the context; the more niche and advanced the topic, the more difficult a "routine" calculation might be. In general I'd say "newly discovered counterexample to a relatively famous conjecture" isn't a "routine calculation" irrespective of how difficult it is to verify. We should have sources which put such a thing in context, and we don't want to encourage anyone who thinks they disproved a conjecture to publish it on Wikipedia first, even if the verification seems simple. –jacobolus (t) 09:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree with you. Especially about waiting for the inevitable reliable sources. It's better to be right than quick. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree as well. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

See also Sofic group. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am planning to accept WP:AFC for Draft:Doob's h-transform but I am not able to validate the content matches the references. Any stochastics folks want to take a peek before I approve? HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Please block IP ~2026-41246-58 (talk · contribs · deletedcontribs · nukecontribs · logs · filterlog · blockuser · blocklog) who is trashing many articles. JRSpriggs (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Saying the truth is not trashing. Do not support censorship!! ~2026-41246-58 (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

If nothing else, you've been edit warring, which is disruptive. You're not going to get what you want by fighting with the Wikipedia community, you're just going to get blocked. If you want to publish your personal analysis, don't do it here. — W.andrea (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Example "contribution":

Warning! Differential geometry is based on derivatives, and derivatives are based on limits. Therefore, differential geometry cannot be taken seriously, but only abstractly, since limits are values that are never reached. In other words, differential geometry produces completely wrong results! This automatically follows from the definition of a derivative: [...]

This is not a helpful type of change to make to Wikipedia. Cf. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing §Righting great wrongs. –jacobolus (t) 18:33, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The IP has been blocked, by PhilKnight. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Interpolation#Requested move 27 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-41485-38 (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I just noticed there aren’t such articles. But maybe there should be? As separate articles from mathematics. (I usually don’t work on such articles myself though.) Taku (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

See Artificial intelligence#Mathematics. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thanks. But I was wondering if a dedicated independent article is warranted; i.e., a main article for such a section. Taku (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The section doesn't look that big right now. We can try to expand it, perhaps, and if it expands enough we can split it into its own article. The Boolean ^_Talk 08:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The redirect Additivity conjecture 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/2026 July 30 §Additivity conjecture until a consensus is reached. Warudo (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

A user is kept on removing sourced contain in ck Raju article and doing NPOV pushing by removing negative contents about the user. The user not only removed sourced contain but removing any information related to him.C K raju is a controversial figure who claims that entire modern calculus was stole from india to europe and he also writes controversial maths description giving conspiracy theories like einstein was wrong or euclid was a egyptian black women and all symbols of modern maths are wrong but when i add these well sourced description a particular user is keep on removing the content. IndianWarriors456 (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm wondering if it's possible to add Template:Group-like structures to Draft:Neocategory. Is this template meant for articles included in a list within the template? So, should I avoid adding it to drafts?--SilverMatsu (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

If neocategory is the sort of thing which would be in the template (and I think it is), then add the template to the draft. After the draft is accepted and moved into main space, you can add the new article to the template. (Just my opinion, not a policy as far a I know.) JRSpriggs (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for the advice. I have added the template to the draft. If this draft passes AfC, I think that neocategory will be added either between partial magma and semigroupoid, or between semigroupoid and small category.--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Between partial magma and semigroupoid, I think. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

In the fundemental theorem of calculus, the proof of the first part relies on the mean value theorem for integration, however, that article says that the proof for that theorem "follows at once from the fundamental theorem of calculus, together with the mean value theorem for derivatives". Oakchris1955 (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Fixed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply