Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Main pageDiscussionContentAssessmentParticipantsResources

Proposal: move(Change the article name) Several complex variables to Function of several complex variables

This is a complex variable in Talk:Complex analysis and has been discussed. For the one complex variable, it seems like a section redirect to Complex functions(in complex analysis), then, the pair seems like Functions of several complex variables. Also, the article names of Several real variables are Function of several real variables. thanks!--SilverMatsu (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• To clarify, this is what you are proposing:
  • Retarget: Complex variable → Complex analysis#Complex functions
  • Redirect Complex variables → Function of several complex variables
  • Move: Several complex variables → Functions of several complex variables
  • Keep: Several real variables → Function of several real variables
  Is that correct? — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC); add "Complex variables" to the list 06:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. sorry, I made a misspelling. But also include Retarget changes in the proposal. The correct spelling is Complex variables.(This seems to be a separate page from the complex variable.)--SilverMatsu (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

So also add "Redirect Complex variables → Function of several complex variables" to the list above? — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I was a little confused because I didn't think it was another page without the s(I overlooked complex variable), but I realized it would be better to add the idea you proposal.--SilverMatsu (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support (with two modifications): The proposal looks reasonable to me. The proposed organization clarifies the relationship between the subjects and are also common in the literature. I would probably leave Complex variable as it is, since theory of functions of a complex variable is bolded as an alternative term in the first sentence at Complex analysis. I would also retarget Real variables → Function of several real variables. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• SupportTazerenix (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support (Including modifications to two proposals by MarkH21.)--SilverMatsu (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose moving to Function of several complex variables. "Several complex variables" long since became a common name for that whole field of study (it also goes by other names such as "complex analysis in several variables"). Witness how people write books and articles entitled Several Complex Variables, "What is Several Complex Variables?", etc., and how it gets treated as a singular noun. Also note how the Mathematics Subject Classification has, as a top-level heading, "Several complex variables and analytic spaces". The article, whose topic is not just the functions but the field of study, should remain called Several complex variables. Consistency with "Function of several real variables" may seem appealing superficially, but the two cases simply aren't analogous. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Several complex variables" is a classical name for the subject (and perhaps the most common), but so are the longer "Functions of several complex variables", "Theory of several complex variables", and "Theory of functions of several complex variables". It's true that "several complex variables" can denote a broader subject than just the function theory (i.e. analytic geometry), although the function theory is the core of the subject and the most classical meaning of the term. For example:
    • Several Complex Variables: "The present book grew out of introductory lectures on the theory of functions of several variables. Its intent is to make the reader familiar, by the discussion of examples and special cases, with the most important branches and methods of this theory"
    • Several Complex Variables and Complex Geometry, Part 3: Equates "several complex variables" with the "function theory of several complex variables"
    • Several Complex Variables II: Uses "several complex variables" interchangeably with "theory of functions of several complex variables"
    Perhaps "complex analysis in several variables" (it's unfortunate that this isn't even mentioned at complex analysis) would be a better article title though, for giving a precise and recognizable name for non-expert audiences. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: basically per Adumbrativus. The term "several complex variables" seems to be quite well established. While "real analysis" can include the study of functions in several real variables, "complex analysis" is typically limited to functions in one complex variable. So, we need some term to refer to complex analysis in several variables. —- Taku (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Adumbrativus, MarkH21, TakuyaMurata, and Tazerenix: Thank you for your reply and follow up. What about Function theory of several complex variables? Function theory is the traditional name for complex analysis. But I'm a worried that the meaning of this name is too narrow.--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Krantz, Steven G. (1992), Function Theory of Several Complex Variables (Second ed.), AMS Chelsea Publishing, p. 340, doi:10.1090/chel/340, ISBN 978-0-8218-2724-6

Noguchi, Junjiro (2016), Analytic Function Theory of Several Variables Elements of Oka’s Coherence, p. XVIII, 397, doi:10.1007/978-981-10-0291-5, ISBN 978-981-10-0289-2

Add two textbooks with the title Function theory.--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Addendum:What I mentioned earlier is about complex analysis in several variables. So for now, I support Functions of several complx variables. Users searching for Several complex variables seem to be looking into what several complex variables mean, and Functions of several complex variables is the concise answer (IMO). It is true that this field is called several complex variables as a branch of complex analysis, but I'm not trying to change Category:Several complex variables.--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Addendum2:Apparently, Krantz says to limit oneself to the study of one complex variable is to do complex analysis with one eye closed, so it seems too narrow to limit complex analysis to one variable. but, this does not seem to affect the redirect target. One complex variable seems to be a classical complex analysis.--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

amendment:How about turning Several complex variables into DAB pages instead of redirects?--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

about the lead sentence

Currently, the lead sentence is In complex analysis, the theory of functions of several complex variables is the branch of mathematics dealing with complex-valued functions in the space $\mathbb {C} ^{n}$ of n-tuples of complex numbers, and especially the the theory of functions of several complex variables is the branch of mathematics part has not changed from the beginning. To be clear, the bold part was initially only the several complex variables. This was one of the reasons I support to functions of several complex variables as the article name, but if the article name doesn't change, it seems like the lead sentence needs to be improved a bit.--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems to have improved now. Thanks to Michael Hardy.--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Blackboard bold (again)

Our discussion from November 2020 has been reopened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Blackboard bold. D.Lazard (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, on a white background, blackboard bold seem difficult to read. If we would like to deprecate blackboard bold, I think it would be useful to change the extension math so that we can type \Complex and display $\mathbf {C}$. For example, in Complex analysis and Several complex variables, even if I stopped using blackboard bold, the meaning seemed clear. White letters on a black background are personally easy to read, but the blackboard bold is a bit hard to read because I can't change the background color.--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

What does mean difficult to read? Do you mean read or distinguish from anything else? If you have difficulties to read $\mathbb {C}$, you must also have difficulties to read most characters, including $\mathrm {C} .$ If, by "read", you mean "distinguish", it seems that $\mathbf {C}$ has much more problems, at least outside complex analysis. For example, many authors use boldface for denoting vectors and matrices. In this case, one has to look to the context for distinguishing, in a formula, a matrix from the complex numbers. The great advantage of blackboard is to be definitely not ambiguous. Another example: If you read $\mathbf {R} [x],$ you have to look at the context to know whether this is the polynomial ring over the reals or over an arbitrary ring, while $\mathbb {R} [x]$ is definitevely not ambiguous in any context, and more specially in a context that is not specially about the reals (for example in mechanics). So I strongly oppose to deprecate blackboard bold. I oppose also to change the rendering of \complex, as this would automatically change many articles without any consensus of their editors. D.Lazard (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I agree that blackboard bold is clearer, and my comment is based on the assumption that blackboard bold would be abolished, so thank you for your advice. The meaning of difficult to read is a little dazzling on the display, but I was taught at the tea house that the colors can be reversed.--SilverMatsu (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

---

My eyes are bad, but i can read black blackboard bold on white background without any difficulty.

I totally agree with D.Lazard's whole reply.

Sorry, SilverMatsu! :-)

RavBol (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I don't think anyone at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Blackboard bold was recommending deprecating blackboard bold! Maybe this was a misunderstanding. Anyway, it seems to be straightened out now. Ebony Jackson (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Currently, I can invert colors using gadgets. Thank you for your concern:) It seems that I overlooked that the style manual had changed (I thought blackboard bold was not recommended on wikipedia.). But the extension:math outputs as an image, so I'm not sure how it affects the reading software. Also, since Unicode characters cannot be used for blackboard bold, I am wondering what to do when using it for the section title. The link I showed used two different notations. If possible, I'm thinking of using one notation. The main reason I decided to comment here was to get advice on the pages shown in the links.--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup of articles on algebras

It seems to me that the articles on algebra over a field, associative algebra and non-associative algebra could use a thorough workover and possibly a merge.

The article on non-associative algebras says that '"non-associative" means "not necessarily associative"' (rather than "not associative") – but then it's not clear why this article is distinct from algebra over a field, which is also about algebras that "may or may not be associative". The sentence "The multiplication operation in an algebra may or may not be associative, leading to the notions of associative algebras and nonassociative algebras." in algebra over a field seems to imply that "non-associative" does mean "not associative".

Constructions such as quotients and products are briefly listed in associative algebra, but no reason is mentioned why these should require associativity; they're not mentioned in the more general articles. The most detailed discussion of direct sums and products of algebras in fact appears to be in yet another article on the direct sum of modules. This warns of a terminological pitfall that the articles on algebras don't mention.

In algebra over a field, the field is in the title and there's a section near the end on the generalization to algebras over a ring. In associative algebra, the introduction starts out saying that an algebra is over a field but the definition section uses a ring instead. In non-associative algebra, a field seems to be assumed, but there's no definition section and the introduction is very similar in this respect to the one in associative algebra.

Quite generally, it feels as if a lot of the content is spread somewhat randomly among these three articles. There should either be a single article about algebras, or, if associative algebras deserve an article of their own, that article should concentrate on the features that depend on associativity, and presumably general things like products and quotients should be in the general article.

(I don't want to do this myself since my understanding of algebras is somewhat superficial.)

Joriki (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

One more thing: There's also an article algebra homomorphism, to which both algebra over a field and associative algebra refer as a "main article", even though it assumes associative algebras. The article on non-associative algebras doesn't mention homomorphisms.

Joriki (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Further information about products of algebras is spread over tensor product of algebras and free product of associative algebras.

Joriki (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the contents of non-associative algebra should be merged into algebra over a field (and reworked, in some cases also trimmed). The article about associative algebras does have a bit of an overlap, but also a lot of content that is special, so these I wouldn't merge. I suggest merging algebra homomorphisms into ring homomorphisms. Tensor product of algebras deserve their own home. The free product of associative algebras is a bit of a stub right now, but I think it makes sense to keep it separately. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Weird recommendations in MATLAB article

Some Mathworks employees have been making suggestions about the MATLAB page recently, but not directly making edits, in order to maintain neutrality.

One pointed on that page's talk page that the 'list of alternatives' on the MATLAB page is kind of weird. It's unsourced and is basically just a list of recommendations, which I'm pretty sure should be covered under one of the list of things Wikipedia is not.

On the one hand, I can see how this directly benefits the corporation, which is suspicious. On the other hand, I really don't think that kind of list is appropriate in an article. We don't have a list of alternatives for Adobe Photoshop, despite its awful business practices, or McAfee VirusScan, despite its shady nature.

I'd suggest removing that section or replacing it with something sourced (perhaps a review article describing commonly used mathematical languages). As it is, I don't think it should remain in its current form. I wanted to check in here before doing anything, but if people don't seem interested in discussion, I'll just remove it after a day or two. Brirush (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, definitely trim it to something sourced. There are plenty of sources discussing alternatives. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the big recommendations section and replaced it with a sourced paragraph listing some popular tools. As always, anyone's free to edit and improve. Brirush (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

How to add external interactive animations about some Math subject

I see that some mathematical subjects benefit immensely of animations and in particular interactive ones. How can we make possible to link those animations to an specific article? Would it be via external links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninguem wiki (talk • contribs)

For background on this question, see Talk:Taylor_series#New_external_link and User_talk:DVdm#Reversion_on_the_Taylor_Series_page. --JBL (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Commons:Project scope/Allowable file types the best you could do is a some kind of animation. There is mw:Extension:Graph which allows quite complex graphs which can be interactive. There are some Demos which are could be adapted to fit. Examples of using this extension can be found at Category:Pages using the Graph extension. --Salix alba (talk): 17:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Based on Talk:Taylor_series#New_external_link and User_talk:DVdm#Reversion_on_the_Taylor_Series_page seems that a common user can't contribute with an interactive animation. As pointed in the discussion I had with the other users, any contribution is to be considered non-reliable if it comes from a common user. I'd interested in knowing what is the difference between a written contribution in an article (writing, editing, etc) and an external contribution (in a form of a link to a page with no advertisement and following all the rules). I have a contribution which I would like to share in Wikipedia because I thick its valuable for understanding of the topic (see discussion mentioned above). How can I reach a consensus on it? Is THIS the right forum? In my understanding the page itself was the right forum so I insisted on keeping the link until someone accesses it and started a discussion wether it is valuable or not. Please notice that the contribution does not have any affiliation, propaganda, logo, advertisement of any kind. Its a simple plain interactive animation. Since you are an organised group and decided to support each others view, how can I reach a consensus? If its a consensus that the page is not the right place to discuss, I stoped posting there and Im bringing the discussion here. It would be very good if User:DVdm and the others could participate.Allan Martins (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Answering to talk:Salix alba, thank you for the answer. I have already a complex Javascript interactive animation, the question was more on the sense of wikipedia rules. See first reply above.Allan Martins (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot allow any user to add random JavaScript to articles, that would be a security nightmare. You can modify your personal JavaScript, at Special:MyPage/vector.js but that will not be seen by other users. The graphs package is the only way you can get interactivity. --Salix alba (talk): 20:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you and understand that Javascript on Wiki pages is far too potentially harmful. That is exactly why I want to contribute by placing all in an external link and adding it as an external link. You suggestion on the graph package is very interesting though, I'll take a look to try other contributions. Allan Martins (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how can we incentive people to contribute if they additions of a simple external link is not cordially analysed and simply reverted by the interpretation of the rules. The link Im providing is absolutely in accordance will all WP:External_links except that we didn't reach a consensus on the WP:Reliable_sources. But I'm willing to discuss it and try to show, in a consensus, that the link I'm providing is no different than an edit that people like me (a professor) would do in an article to contribute. I'm not sure if people even bother to take a look at the link and see that its in accordance with WP:External_links policies. There is no advertisement, not even the name of the author is promoted there. I'm don't know why people think I gain in insisting on doing this contribution. I'm a professor and credentials are not relevant here, but my job is to educate people and Wikipedia is a very powerful tool for it. I would understand the argument that "if everyone start putting links, it would be a mess". But so is "if everyone start editing pages would be a mess". Thats the whole point of Wikipedia. it works! So, I'm pretty sure if I was just practicing vandalism in trying to place one harmless (on the contrary, useful) link to an article I would not wasting my time here explaining everything. So I ask people that read this discussion (not specifically you talk:Salix alba since your answer was very productive for me showing me the graph functionality) to take a moment to reflect on their actions. Impose wikipedia rules just the bold "letter" of it is not ok. That is to ignore the true principle behind Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a place where you have fun catching "bad edits". It has a serious goal of promoting knowledge and disseminate information. And mainly, to stimulate and encourage contributions. Im just starting to contribute and, honestly that was not a nice welcome. You can't use people's serious contribution to collect patrol points or satisfy some personal vanity. Let's discuss. Present arguments that sustain your interpretation of the rules.Allan Martins (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the heavy text above, but I like Wikipedia a lot. I feel its worth fight for its correct use.Allan Martins (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Induced metric

Does anyone know offhand of a good reference to add to Induced metric? The reason for the "expert needed" tag is technically untrue (one reference exists rather than zero), but an additional pointer couldn't hurt. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a fairly basic concept that is discussed in textbooks on manifolds. For instance, see pages 25-27 of Lee, John M., Riemannian Manifolds: An Introduction To Curvature, (GTM no. 176, Springer,1997)(ISBN 038798271X). --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

about Plurisubharmonic function

Regarding section Oka's theorem, the content of the theorem seems correct (since the article name is a plurisubharmonic function, there is no need to use the term pseudoconvex domain.), but I have doubts about calling the content of this section Oka's theorem. (also, I think the prove to $\mathbb {C} ^{n}$ space was the IX'th Oka's paper in 1953.) There is no doubt that it was Kiyoshi Oka who solved Levi's problem for $\mathbb {C} ^{n}$ space (Riemannian domain), but it was Cartan who extended Levi's problem for Stein manifolds, which is written on this article and it seems like Grauert prove that. I'm wondering if Levi's problem with Stein manifolds should be included in Oka's theorem. I'm not sure about this because I just called it Levi's problem. thanks!--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Typesetting \mathbb{1} within Wikipedia articles

How can I use 𝟙 in a math equation? It seems from various sources that I need to use the bbm package. Is it possible to use LaTeX in Wikipedia articles that use packages? --Yoderj (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I have used some funny business in the Heaviside step function article:

<big>𝟙</big><math>\,\!_{x > 0}</math>

but there must be a better way --Yoderj (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I asked this question over at the help desk and Mike Turnbull guided me here:

Hi Yoderj. You should be able to get some guidance at WP:LATEX. Alternatively, seek out the Talk Pages for the maths projects and an expert in this stuff will likely help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! --Yoderj (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've created a phabricator task. T279805. --Salix alba (talk): 19:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like its upstream, and the syntax does not work in standard mathjax. It might be possible to add one of the packages mentioned in the stack exchange thread. --Salix alba (talk): 19:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

For an indicator function, I'm sure this isn't the answer you wanted, but I would suggest using a plain $1$ or bold $\mathbf {1}$ which are more common notations than blackboard bold in this context. (I don't mean to detract from your technical typesetting question which is interesting in its own right and I hope will be resolved.) Adumbrativus (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Adumbrativus. --JBL (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

A bold one it will be. Thank you. --Yoderj (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

So are there any cases where we would want this notation? Getting something through code review is a lot of work for something which might not be used. --Salix alba (talk): 15:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Good edit?

Did this edit fix an error, or introduce one? Maths articles can be quiet, and problems might linger unnoticed; this seemed like the best place to ask. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me: a function of s is integrated over the range s=0 to s=t. However, you're right in principle that lots of superficially similar edits are mistakes or subtle vandalism, both of which need to be reverted. Certes (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It's those mistakes or subtle vandalism I fear I'd miss in this area. Thanks for taking a look at it. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Minimal polynomial of 2 cos(2π/n)

The formatting of the title of Minimal polynomial of 2cos(2pi/n) is abominable, and the DISPLAYTITLE template didn't help. How to proceed? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The present title is not only not convenient for a good display, it is also not convenient from an encyclopedic point of view: Viewing this title, a reader should naturally ask the question "Why considering specifically these numbers". So, I suggest to rename the article Real parts of roots of unity. One may object that this article is not about the the real parts, but about twice the real parts, but the difference is small enough for not being confusing.

Another question is whether this article should be merged into Cyclotomic polynomial. D.Lazard (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Merging it into Cyclotomic polynomial, perhaps into a section entitled "Related polynomials", sounds like a good idea to me. Ebony Jackson (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That seems plausible to me also, although I also like D.Lazard's suggestion for a better title. Something I wonder in thinking about this possible merge: the article states that these polynomials can be expressed either in terms of the cyclotomic polynomials or the Chebyshev polynomials, so I would think this also means that the cyclotomic and Chebyshev polynomials can be related by transitivity. But currently neither the cyclotomic polynomial nor the Chebyshev polynomials article mentions the other. Should they? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Script to show short descriptions in Wikipedia categories

I'd like to call attention to a user script that has been developed to show WP:Short descriptions in category listings: User:SD0001/shortdescs-in-category

This might be of particular interest to mathematics users as categories of mathematical theorems typically show titles of the form "So-and-so and Other-person theorem," i.e. just the names of discoverers, which conveys little or no information about the result proved (or conjectured). When this script is installed and the Show SD button that appears is clicked, any short description associated with an article title is displayed beneath it. To the extent that these SDs are available and informative, it becomes much easier to understand the content of a theorem category.--agr (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@ArnoldReinhold: Neat! — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

New promotional math articles

Editors may want to monitor the flurry of new math articles by Remitbuber, including Math crisis, Adrián Macías, Blas Méndez, Virus Matemático, General Assembly of the International Mathematical Union, ICM 1966, ICM 2014, ICM 2026. Many do not seem notable and may involve a fair amount of COI. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Nicolás Atanes was also very promotional when first created; it's now been stubbed down (and is still not a good article but at least is not overwhelmed with promotionalism). [Of course you MarkH21 know this, since you did much of the cleanup.] Most of these topics are closely related to Atanes, suggesting paid editing or at a minimum a serious COI. Probably worth a trip to WP:COIN. --JBL (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: In fact, someone has since taken this to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Remitbuber! — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Math crisis has been BOLDly redirect to Math anxiety. One of the remaining articles is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrián Macías. — MarkH₂₁^talk 13:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@MarkH21: If Math crisis isn't noticeable, I'd suggest AfD instead of redirects. See the Foundations of mathematics lead statement.--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Demystify math written in symbols by including programming language style code side-by-side

I'd be surprised if this doesn't come up, but it seems like the math articles are particularly low on value to readers not well versed in mathematical symbols. As a programmer I find these symbols looks impressive and cryptic, but rewritten in computer language style code can appear very trivial and unimpressive and hence easier to grasp, since computer language works with only a few rudimentary symbols instead of abstract levels of arbitrary symbols. All I'm saying is Wikipedia could be a great resource to teach math concepts if it did this I think, and programmers could benefit from being able to easily use math concepts in their work without deciphering them like hieroglyphics first --72.173.4.14 (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

There are several related problems, and the optimal solution must be a compromise between them.

A first problem is that many symbols should better replaced by prose. For example "for $x\in X$" is easier understood as "for x in X ". Copy editing articles for making such changes would solve a part of your concern. However many articles have other issues that are worse. So, I make such changes only as a side action of fixing other issues. I suspect that most of the competent math editors do the same. Your help would thus be welcome.

A second problem is that any "computer language style code" involves conventions that are programming language dependent. So for a wider understanding, it is better to keep the conventions that are established since centuries. Also many mathematical formulas are hardly expressible in a computer language style.

On the other hand, many articles could be improved by replacing a lengthy description of an algorithm by its description in pseudo-code, followed by a explanation of the meaning of the pseudo-code. Examples are Euclidean algorithm, where the very simple pseudocode appears only at the end of the article, and long division, where a pseudo-code description could provide a synthetic view that is difficult to extract from the given verbose description. D.Lazard (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

For the record I'm seeding the idea, it would be a colossal undertaking to even develop the style guidelines. I don't think the articles should be dumbed down, and this project should (would) be overseen by mathematicians. I'd say the existing notation has problems because it's usually just an image. This kind of concept could help with that by providing a version that can be selected (copy/paste). If I were asked how to format it, I would suggest putting a clickable icon beside appropriate math text that expands a box that cuts across the entire width of the container, so that any text before the math inline notation (including it) is above this box and any after is below it (after expansion) and inside this box just use something like calculator notation for traditional math, and programmer's notation for structured/stateful elements. This could be very useful because abstractions can be written as opaque functions and those can be links that when hovered over with the mouse reveal the body of the function at least up to one level. I just think this would add so much value to the many math articles that can seem impenetrable to non-mathematicians. Programming is something more and more people are familiar with and is generally easier to understand with less memorization and familiarization with symbols. For math that is not inline inside text it would be good to put the code in an already expanded box beside the math notation to put it on the same level, especially because often it's likely to be more readable to a layman --72.173.4.14 (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Further note, a lot of this would probably be done by bots after some test pages are developed. It just seems like a commonsensical thing to do. Especially since the images that are currently generated are so unlike the rest of the text in Wikipedia --72.173.4.14 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

RE "for x in X" I think this would be perfect to put in the "title" element in the HTML so it shows in a balloon when the mouse hovers over it. This will teach people the math symbols too if they do it enough times, which would be enriching --72.173.4.14 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)