Talk:Module (mathematics)

	This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Mathematics Top‑priority

Archives

Archive 1

The word redirects here but is not used in the article. Equinox (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, a semimodule is just like a module, except that the underlying abelian group is replaced with an abelian semigroup, so the elements do not necessarily have inverses. For example, the set of natural numbers is a semiring, and it is a semimodule over itself just as any ring is a module over itself. I think an argument could be made to redirect this to "semiring" instead of "module." Rschwieb (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph the term "abelian" should be linked to our relevant article for ease of use. I'm not a skilled editor, so request someone else add this link. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.86.137 (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition. Latex should be preferred as the default for mathematical typography on this page because:

1. Usage of multiple templates or raw unicode leads to a LOT of rendering variability and browser interaction, whereas Latex focuses efforts of mathematical typography and rendering onto preferred community libraries. This makes usability very hard to test.

2. Latex provides many fallback options, including rendering to SVG or PNG.

3. It's easier for amateur Wikipedians to copy-paste Latex, and it's easier to follow along when the community has consistent style.

4. Maintenance becomes easier with uniformity. Across different math pages one may find raw unicode, a no-wrap template, a variables template, or a generic Math template.

5. Editing by source becomes very ugly with multiple styles.

6. Mathematical typography should be consistent at least within-page even if not between pages.

7. More popular peer math pages prefer this style, such as Linear Algebra.

SirMeowMeow (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been widely discussed in Wikipedia, see

WT:WPM

.

For those links, where do you see the language which suggests there is consensus to use math and mvar? There is also language to suggest that encoding and typography should be locally decided, rather than decided on a Wikipedia math-wide level. We also have this statement: "This essay offers a comparison of different encodings and presentation of mathematical formulae. The three principal ones are the <math> tag, raw wiki (or HTML) code, and "texhtml" templates. The <math> and "texhtml" encoding may have different presentations for registered users, depending on user preferences and personal styles." This would suggest that mvar is not among the top 3 choices for encoding. There is a LOT of rendering variability which occurs when we use multiple templates, whereas rendering with Latex is more battle-hardened and continuously improved upon. Some of the rendering is typographically AMBIGUOUS.

When you use something other than <math>, you are losing mass-browser support, huge amounts of accessibility work, and multiple-fallback solutions. Doing so ought be a deliberate choice made for conscious tradeoffs. SirMeowMeow (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no point in making your case here. Suggested changes to the consensus should be discussed at

WT:WPM as suggested above. Rschwieb (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

talk page of the article before implementation. If there is no positive response, or if planned changes affect more than one article, consider notifying an appropriate Wikiproject, such as WikiProject Mathematics

for mathematical articles.

MOS:VAR says The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are [sic] acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."^[1] If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page or—if it raises an issue of more general application or with the MoS itself—at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

.

and

Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable.^[2][3]

So, please, respect wikipedia rules. Thanks. D.Lazard (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1)

MOS:FORMULA

says not to proceed BOLDLY and to build consensus on the talk page. That suggests that local talk pages are precisely the right place to build consensus.

I also refer to this passage Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics, which suggests that while large-scale changes may be controversial, one should refer to clear improvements: "Proposed changes should generally be discussed on the talk page of the article before implementation. If there is no positive response, or if planned changes affect more than one article, consider notifying an appropriate Wikiproject, such as WikiProject Mathematics for mathematical articles."

(2) The citation to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is about style. It's difficult to believe that an author's style is to surrender control for more rendering variability, where the author is less aware of whether their formulas will even appear correct. Will the identity matrix look more like the number 1 depending on browser interactions? Is that a question of style? And is the homogeneity of encoding a matter of screen reader accessibility (heterogeneous markup is a death sentence to screen readers)? What is this concept of style to a screen reader?

(3) It is not obvious why there will be edit wars over a matter of encoding or rendering, especially as the rest of the world outside of Wikipedia has very strong consensus for Latex and MathML. Is there actually a problem of people converting Latex into a myriad of math templates?

(4) I refer to this passage from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics: "Even for simple formulae the LaTeX markup might be preferred if required for uniformity within an article."

(5) I refer to the page Help:Displaying a formula, which is almost entirely full of Latex and MathML examples. This was the start of many people's on-ramping for learning to encode math on Wikipedia.

This is a question of whether UNDERNEATH the text there will be one kind of element tag versus another, and how that impacts site accessibility. I'm here to argue why there are net positive reasons for local style consistency on this page, but so far I've been getting no response to my actual arguments.

Improved site accessibility for screen readers, reduced variability of rendering due to browser interactions, massive technological support and great fallback solutions, etc. are all well known arguments about why there is non-trivial BENEFIT. Where does focus on style fit in all of this?

SirMeowMeow (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The examples refer to K but that is not defined anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcsfred2 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "If K is a field" defines K. More precisely, it specifies K sufficiently for giving sense to what follows. D.Lazard (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]