Wikibooks talk:Mathematics bookshelf

I'd like to help out, especially in the "applied math" section, which I note is pretty sparse.

I'm familiar with lots of different topics (PhD 2006), and am particularly interested in broader organization of different classes in a logical order. This was discussed farther down the page as well, I think, but for example "general math" and "higher math" don't seem like particularly informative categories when "general math" contains differential topology.

So, anyway, I want to contribute my class notes as I develop them in the coming years, but I'm particularly interested in thinking on a higher level. Now, the main bookshelf pages are not editable, so what do I have to do to join in such discussions? Are there Administrators of this bookshelf with whom I could talk? --Scott.norris 16:55, 16 Dec 2007 (UTC-5)

What should I do if want to join this project and make my contributions? Ahmad Abdullah

To what extent should these books be written in LaTeX? If people feel that they should in general be in LaTeX, then I will start working on doing that. --ComplexZeta 02:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They are written using the Wiki formatting system, which does incorporate use of TeX, so there is no need. Dysprosia 03:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is there a general style guide for constructing math books? Of not, I believe there should be one! Not just general rules, but a collection of templates, specific rules, (like new terms should be in italics) and such. Colors, how to name things, and such. Paxinum 20:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Halmos wrote a wonderful essay on how to write mathematics. I wish I could dig it up right now. It could serve as an excellent basis for a style guide.

Most math courses build on prerequisite knowledge. Calculus requires algebra and trig. Trig requires geometry. We need a dependency tree so interested readers can find where to start. --Waxmop 16:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If one approaches things through Wikiversity, there should be one, it's in the works. See Wikiversity:School of Mathematics. Dysprosia 22:33, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If your going to write a math wiki-book, remember to keep copious amountws of backlinks to previous concepts that need to be known.

So, should all these books be tagged with

 [[Category:Mathematics]]

? --DavidCary 19:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

This book contains mathematical formulae that look better rendered as PNG.

I created a template that notifies the user that certain pages simply look better when the math formulas look better rendered as PNG. The template could probably use a little work, i am pretty bad with the html color codes after all. This template also links to a category Category:RenderPNG, so that we can keep track of pages that use alot of formulas (and look better in PNG). --Whiteknight _TC^E 18:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi! As a high school math teacher, it would be awesome if it were easy to reference which pages were high school appropriate...could i create a high school page? That links to stuff i found at wikiversity, and here, etc.... JamieJones 15:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Pages of lists, in general, are not appropriate on wikibooks. However, it would be possible to create a template that lables certain pages as being "Highschool Appropriate", and a category to lump all those pages together, under a single heading. If you would like to start setting that project up, leave me a message on my talk page, and I will help you out with the details. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 14:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

What would be the thought on compiling important pure mathematical results, and compiling them in a book organized by field? Proof sketches or complete proofs could be given for all. The book would assume knowledge of the particular fields, while the field would be largely independent. The fields could be done in a largely sequential manner, where beginning results are proved first, and other results are proven from things previously proven. Robert Carr 00:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

See The Book of Mathematical Proofs. Cheers--Shahab 06:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I reorganized the bookshelf into mathamatical catagories for easier reference. Basejumper123 02:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

The "algebra" section contains a number of different books, many of which are currently sharing or duplicating material between themselves. Also, some of the booknames don't correspond to any specific body of information, such as Intermediate Algebra, or Algebra I - A Verbose Approach. I would like to propose a merger and a reorganization of this section as follows:

The remaining books will be:

• Algebra I in Simple English (unchanged)
• Algebra (incorporating Algebra I - A Verbose Approach and Intermediate Algebra)
• Linear Algebra
• Abstract algebra (Incorporating Discrete mathematics, and possibly moved to Abstract Algebra)

Also, I would like to separate out the material so that it goes more or less in a chronological order: Algebra → Linear Algebra → Abstract Algebra. This means that we will no longer be cross-linking chapters, and there will be no more redundant information in these books. Here is my proposed listing of topics for each book, (not in a particular order):

• Algebra
  • Arithmetic review
  • Polynomials, Quadratic Equation, etc
  • Factoring Polynomials, Solving for X
  • Functions, Equalities, Inequalities, Function combinations
  • Conic Sections and Graphing
  • Exponentials, Radicals, and Logarithms
• Linear Algebra
  • Systems of Equations
  • Matrices, Vectors
  • Matrix Operations (addition, multiplication, transpose, determinant)
  • Cramer's Rule
  • Submatrices (minors, adjoint, etc)
  • Matrix Inverses
  • Eigenvalues/Eigenvectors
  • Linear Transformations
  • Vector Spaces (lead in to Abstract Algebra...)
• Abstract Algebra
  • Sets and Compositions
  • Semigroups, Groups, Abelian Groups
  • Rings, fields and modules
  • Isomorphisms, Homomorphisms
  • Modules, Algebras

This layout will make things flow better, will make the organization nicer, will reduce duplicate material and cross-links, etc. If nobody objects to this change, I would like to get to work on it soon. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

That is great! Paxinum 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey all. I just found a great template that I think we should standardize and use for all questions and solutions. The template looks like this:

 |{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
 |-
 ! style="background-color: #B4CDCD;" | 
 |-
 | style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 |}

Just disregard the first |; I put that in so that I could put lines around the text. In any event, it looks like a great way to present problems. Here's one I made:

Question: Convert ${\displaystyle {\frac {\pi }{2}}}$ into degree form.
Solution: 90°

(NOTE: To see the way it actually looks on the page, follow this link to my talk page and look at "Template Example": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robinson0120)

http://www.december.com/html/spec/color.html has a number of hexadecimal colors to choose from for the question and answer background, too.

So, what does everybody think? Robinson0120 03:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think it is a great idea, how does it work when printing on paper? I like the last one the most, the rendered math have white background, and it looks bad on the coloured background. Nice idea anyway! Paxinum 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

This book needs help. I would delete it if I could, but it should at least be given a chance and besides, I have the Pilingual Primer deletion to put up with. Please, someone, help! Laleena (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think instead of having general advanced and special as catagories there should be just Algebra, Calculus, Geometry, and Statistics, and any other type of math. Then inside each category make a book for each school year. For example grade 3 Geometry could include identifying polygons, and grade 10 Geometry could include Trigonometry. I think it would be easier to reference that way, and even if the curriculums are different they can go through in order and see where they're at. Also I think that there should be separate text books and work books. So there would be "Geometry gr. 3 Textbook", and "Geometry gr. 3 Workbook". The text book would just strictly explain concepts and maybe have some examples. I feel the way books are organized right now is confusing and inefficient and if anyone has any suggestions to modify my system they are welcome. Mason L. (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think that it would be a good idea to have an ordered list of wikibooks, ordered according to which books are more or less important to improve first.--24.62.238.203 (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll go out on a limb here and make a list of what books I think should be prioritized. The ones that I'll list as 'high' priority are books that will be useful to the most wide audience as well as having enough content already established as to make contributing a Herculean task. The 'medium' priority books are books that I feel will be used by a narrower population or need enough work done that it might be intimidating to try and take one of them on. All of the other books I would personally mark as 'low priority' as I feel the core books for a typical math education should be established first. So, here's my list (feel free to provide input/criticism!):

High priority

• Linear Algebra
• Trigonometry
• Calculus
• Statistics

Medium priority

• Arithmetic
• Geometry
• Number Theory
• Set Theory
• Mathematical Proof
• Abstract Algebra

Skyc (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because IP is not allowed to edit the bookpage, please add sv:Matematik to the iw-list. //84.217.183.117 (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I feel that some books (Algebraic Geometry,Crystallography,Topology,Combinatorial Topology and Differential Geometry) that are currently in the geometry shelf under 'basic math' definitely belong to higher mathematics. Should I move them?

SPat (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, the first half of the book Topology, titled Point-Set Topology is quite developed whereas the second half titled Algebraic Topology is sparse. Does it make sense to split the book?
SPat (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

They are quite developed because I developed them - well, most of the basic stuff. I just didn't bother to develop the second half yet. I do not think this is best because, well, they can be developed later.--A (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have made some changes to the arrangement of the shelf, the biggest being shifting certain books from the "basic" geometry section to a new one titled "Geometry and Topology". Also, I've moved the section "differential equations" to higher math.

SPat (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Check this: pl:Matematyka_dla_liceum. Why can't you make a book like this, all liceum (secondary school, high school) stuff in one place. Is there something similar on En.Wikibooks? Well, waiting for your opinion. Translate is here: google translate --Lethern (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

In mathematics, a topic called advanced mathematics is being developed in the Persian book wiki and is about to be completed In my opinion, this ebook is very good if it is created. HEJJWJDEJDNSGWTG (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply