Talk:List of important publications in mathematics

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 October 2011. The result of the discussion was Keep.

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

History of Science Mid‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Bibliographies: Science High‑importance

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Science Taskforce (assessed as Top-importance).

Archives: 1

Formatting

The formatting used in this article seems to be completely random. Some headers are topics, some are books, and these is no coherent organization or hierarchy to them. To add to the confusion, sometimes books are not written in italics and sometimes they aren't. Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the article follow the style guidelines at WikiProject Bibliographies. Titles should always be in italics. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all the titles are section headers, but vary from level 3 to 5. The MOS says that normally, section headings should not contain links. Since many of the article titles do have links, it would be better to present them as bulleted lists. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the heading level of all the book titles to 5. I have also increased the TOC depth to 3: this illustrates a basic problem with the current style. Look at section 4 (Analysis). Even though Introductio in analysin infinitorum is a level 5 header, it is numbered as level 3 because there are no level 3 or 4 headers preceding it. That puts Introductio at the same level as Calculus and other level 3 headers below it. I don't know of any way of adjusting the TOC controls to fix this. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kantorovich invented simplex?

This page says that Kantorovich invented the simplex method. I've always heard that Kantorovich was one of the first to formulate problems as LPs, but the simplex method was due to Dantzig. Neither Kantorovich's page nor the simplex method's page describe Kantorovich as the inventor. Why does this page say so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinBuchanan (talk • contribs) 13:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That entry was added way back on March 22, 2005 by Bharathrangarajan (talk · contribs · logs). It doesn't seem that anyone else bothered to validate the content. — Myasuda (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the false assertion. Thanks for pointing it out. — Myasuda (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs consistent date and era conventions

Dates are given in arbitrary-seeming styles. For example, a few successive entries have:

1.1.1 Baudhayana Sulba Sutra
Baudhayana (8th century BC) …
1.1.2 The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art
The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art from the 10th–2nd century BCE. …
1.1.3 The Sea Island Mathematical Manual
Liu Hui (220-280) …
1.1.4 The Mathematical Classic of Sun Zi
Sunzi (5th century) …
1.1.5 Aryabhata
Aryabhata (499 CE) …
1.1.6 Jigu Suanjing
Jigu Suanjing (626AD) …
1.1.7 Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta
Brahmagupta (628 AD)

Is it fair to call this a mess? Well, anyway, it's a mess. I propose to change all dates to use the common era style:
either:

9999 BCE

or:

9999 CE

or (when unambiguous) just:

– where the 9's indicate digits 0 to 9 with suppression of any leading zeroes. Here are relevant bits of the MoS for date formatting:

Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article. …

and

In general, do not use CE or AD unless required to avoid ambiguity …

Following these conventions, we would have instead:

1.1.1 Baudhayana Sulba Sutra
Baudhayana (8th century BCE) …
1.1.2 The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art
The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art from the 10th to 2nd century BCE. …
1.1.3 The Sea Island Mathematical Manual
Liu Hui (220-280 CE) …
1.1.4 The Mathematical Classic of Sun Zi
Sunzi (5th century CE) …
1.1.5 Aryabhata
Aryabhata (499 CE) …
1.1.6 Jigu Suanjing
Jigu Suanjing (626 CE) …
1.1.7 Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta
Brahmagupta (628 CE)

You'll note that I've retained the "CE" for dates in the last two millennia, since we can't assume the general reader would know in which era any of these authors flourished.

Thoughts? yoyo (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tabular form for list articles

Would it be better to convert this list article to tabular form? The only reason I can see for doing so would be to allow the reader to sort by date, author or mathematical discipline (field). But would the first of these need us to use Astronomical year numbering to sort correctly? yoyo (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of important publications in mathematics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206014221/http://mathdoc.emath.fr/cgi-bin/oetoc?id=OE_FOURIER__2 to http://mathdoc.emath.fr/cgi-bin/oetoc?id=OE_FOURIER__2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comment

Ha. Seriously, this, is some precious stuff. Note to self, precious. Must be kept at any cost. Ema--or (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC) Caveat - maybe not any (maybe an ethical arg. for philo.s), but you get it.[reply]

Anybody have problem with the title, pls feel free to change, can't think of any else at the mo. Ema--or (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC) A ha. Vital? shouldn't this be vital for wp mat? Ema--or (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ytang Zhang work should be added to this article ?

Yitang Zhang work of 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by محمد مختاري (talk • contribs) 20:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]