Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have/Expanded/Mathematics
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Maqivi in topic Обоснования
Обоснования
editDeinocheirus, те статьи, которые я удалил либо являются подклассом других статей, либо не важны и трудно дорабатываемы до 16 к. А те статьи, которые я добавил более значимы и легко дорабатываемы до 16 к. Maqivi (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Here my problem is first and foremost with adding items that do not clearly fit into the field of mathematics. Mathematical physics and especially Mathematical finance are crossover topics, and they should not replace pure mathematical items (or any pure-topic items, for that matter). Cybernetics and Machine learning seem to better fit Technology list where we have overarching topic of information technology, why mathematics all of a sudden? Mathematical notation is the only item that indeed seems overlooked and deserving to be included because it does have a crucial value for the entire topic of mathematics. Which item should be replaced? I cannot say for sure although Nonlinear programming may be one of candidates. Once again, I would like to hear additional opinions from people who work on this list and the List of articles every Wikipedia should have: Yerpo, Dcljr, Boivie etc. --Deinocheirus (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I only worked on List of articles every Wikipedia should have briefly 4 years ago, and have never (AFAIK) worked on any of the "Expanded" lists. So I don't really have any strong opinions about this — not at the moment, anyway. - dcljr (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Deinocheirus, все эти статьи из категории Математика. Математическая физика (см. шаблон) - это часть от математической модели (кстати, почему этой статьи нет?), Математические финансы - это часть прикладной математики, также как эконометрика и математическая экономика (тоже почему-то нет в списке). Все они используют математические методы, поэтому они относятся к математике, хоть и изучают смежные дисциплины. В списке три статьи, которые относятся к полям Field (mathematics), Field theory (mathematics)Class field theory. Зачем 3 статьи об одном и том же, когда есть много нераскрытых тем? Maqivi (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Here we go. Mathematical model looks much more reasonable to me - it is indeed a vast and crucial aspect of mathematics. As for mathematical physics as its part - if you suggest to eliminate some elements in the list because they represent just a portion of more notable and well-known concept, then there is no reason whatsoever to add similarly specific instances of other well-known concept. Same goes for the aspects of Applied math - why should we have a bunch of topics on this one and not on Field theory? If you wish to replace some elements with others there should be some sort of analysis, not just gut feelings. For example, while Mathematical physics, Econometrics and Mathematical economics appear in the 2002 Encyclopaedia of Mathematics, mathematical finance does not. To me, it is an indication that professionals do not consider this one important enough. Field theory does not appear in this book as a separate entity from Field and Class field theory (each of which do have their own article) - this is again and indication that we perhaps may discard it as well. And so on. --Deinocheirus (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Я не считаю, что прикладная математика, которая в данный момент представлена 3-4 статьями менее важна, чем теория вероятности и статистика, у которой 43 статьи. Также я считаю, что финансовая математика более важна чем Statistical population, Chi-squared distribution, Multivariate normal distribution, Randomized controlled trial, Maximum likelihood estimation, P-value, Poisson distribution и многие другие статьи из списка.Maqivi (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Here we go. Mathematical model looks much more reasonable to me - it is indeed a vast and crucial aspect of mathematics. As for mathematical physics as its part - if you suggest to eliminate some elements in the list because they represent just a portion of more notable and well-known concept, then there is no reason whatsoever to add similarly specific instances of other well-known concept. Same goes for the aspects of Applied math - why should we have a bunch of topics on this one and not on Field theory? If you wish to replace some elements with others there should be some sort of analysis, not just gut feelings. For example, while Mathematical physics, Econometrics and Mathematical economics appear in the 2002 Encyclopaedia of Mathematics, mathematical finance does not. To me, it is an indication that professionals do not consider this one important enough. Field theory does not appear in this book as a separate entity from Field and Class field theory (each of which do have their own article) - this is again and indication that we perhaps may discard it as well. And so on. --Deinocheirus (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)