Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics

Shortcut

Dots / ellipsis in math formulas

I'm surprised that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ (using centered dots) was moved to 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... (dots no longer centered) while Help:Displaying a formula#Larger expressions suggests in examples that the correct typography is to use centered dots. So, what's the recommendation? — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The move was motivated because the title used a centered ellipsis (a single character)instead of three dots. I suggest to request a move for replacing dots with centered dots (I did the change in the text). D.Lazard (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably because MOS says not to use the unicode ellipsis character for lowered dots and someone got it into their head that this meant a blanket prohibition on any other kind of ellipsis. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They do not appear centred on my device (Firefox on Android). They look identical to a normal ellipsis so I didn't know it was different. Since I was apparently wrong in thinking this was an uncontroversial move, it ought to be reversed. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it back. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. @Hairy Dude: With Firefox on Android on my Samsung Galaxy (Firefox Beta 135.0b8), they appear centered as expected (both with the mobile site and the desktop site); you may have unusual settings. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a red link while reading this. 31.45.47.88 (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a duplicate paragraph.
Same, but in HTML-5 and math . 31.45.47.88 (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is now blue (CLOSED!) 31.45.47.88 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature for field

Shouldn't the article state that Wikipedia uses the modern nomenclature where fields are assumed to be commutative and uses "division ring" for the more general case, and give guidance on whther to avoid "skew field" and "sfield"? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section Division rings in Field. Nevertheless, I added "skew field" in the hatnote. D.Lazard (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I was addressing the guidelines in MOS. Wouldn't it be appropriate to link to Field (mathematics) and Division ring as giving the nomenclature to be used? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand, section § Terminology conventions is intended for making Wikipeida homogeneous in the cases where different conventions are common outside Wikipedia, and disputes occur frequently between editors who disagree on the convention to be used. Presently, it is no more common to use "field" instead of "division algebra", and disagreements about the convention to use are unlikely. The only problem is to avoid confusion for the (rare, I suppose) readers who are accustomed to the older terminology. This is not a subject for the manual of style, and the edits done on Field (mathematics) solve the problem completely, in my opinion, D.Lazard (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semidirect product bar notation

I see, as a mathematical notational convention, The bar notation is discouraged because it is not supported by all browsers followed by a suggestion to use the deprecated Template:Unicode which seems to exist to fix (long-EOLed) Windows XP. Is this still an active concern? Sesquilinear (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on mw:Compatibility#Browsers the only browser from before the depreciation that isn't in the "you're on your own, buddy" category is the Android WebView which I'm pretty sure did not have any Unicode issues like that. So I don't think it makes sense to have this in the MoS. Sesquilinear (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the part about using numeric unicode escapes rather than the character itself makes no sense now. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abelian et al

There should be guidelines in § Algebra on the use of the terms

  1. Abelian
  2. anticommutative
  3. antisymmetric
  4. commutative
  5. Non-abelian
  6. Noncommutative
  7. skew-symmetric
  8. symmetric

This should include guidelines on whether to change the style of existing articles. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if and only if

this says that if and only if should be avoided and i disagree wholeheartedly. if and only if means something very specific, and other terms might mislead the reader on what is actually happening. i think if and only if should always be used when applicable, and the first use should link to the article Safetypinzz (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The manual does not tell us to avoid "if and only if". There are two relevant passages, that you might be mis-interpreting.
First, the manual tells us to avoid "if and only if" when giving a definition. That can be argued over, but currently one side has won the argument.
Second, the manual tells us to avoid "iff" as an abbreviation for "if and only if". I've never heard anyone seriously argue otherwise, as far as encyclopedia text is concerned.
Does this explanation help you? Do you still have an objection? Mgnbar (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing "if and only if" should definitely not be avoided. But I think on most articles, it should not be linked. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WT:MSM