User talk:TakuyaMurata

See the page history to retrieve old threads.

Something interesting for you

I figured you might like this, especially the appendix. (Note the author.) [1] Tito Omburo (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know about it. It's certainly something, though I wouldn't describe it as interesting. I suspect many of our math articles in Wikipedia would actually look like this document to non-math editors. -- Taku (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: L-curve has been accepted

L-curve, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 18:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. UtherSRG (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my reply in the talkpage of the article. Needless to say, just because one editor believes there should be a maintenance template, that doesn't mean it cannot be removed. -- Taku (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you may be blocked from editing. UtherSRG (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you crossed a line. Threatening a fellow editor will actually block you from editing. -- Taku (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need an intervention so I have reported the incident at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:UtherSRG_reported_by_User:TakuyaMurata_(Result:_). -- Taku (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Taku. That was a messy situation, and I hope you don't encounter too many more like it. The feedback I have for you is that I think the community generally views tags differently from you. For the most part, I've experienced editors leaving tags until the problem is obviously fixed or until discussion shows consensus for removal. You're almost certainly aware of it, but you may want to reread WP:WTRMT. At one point in the discussion you said "if there is an objection, one editor cannot insist on it, right?", and my experience is that most editors would say that tags should remain even if one editor objects. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the community I think (which was kind of my point in my closing comment at the noticeboard). My experience is that I have almost never had any disputes over tags with other math editors (usually disputes are over content or notability) but such a dispute tends to occur with NPP editors or AfC editors. I suspect because they are used to dealing with new users, they tend to insist on maintenance templates over an objection. In the case in question, my objection was simply: one tag was redundant with the presence of another tag. The other party disagreed. So, the dispute was more of over an appropriateness of putting a tag that I find redundant; and I think I'm right to think no editor can unilaterally overrule an objection when trying to add stuff to the article, including a template. In fact, at the noticeboard thread, ToBeFree wrote "Wikipedia places the burden of proof or the onus to obtain a consensus on those favoring inclusion of the material"; they clarified the material includes a template. Taku (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising that NPP or AFC editors end up in tag disputes more than math editors generally, since articles tend to be tagged when they're new or under review, and NPP/AFC articles are both. I understand your objection to the tag and don't have a comment. I didn't read TBF's comments as explicitly including templates as material covered by WP:BURDEN/WP:ONUS, but I don't mind conceding the point for the sake of discussion. Even if that BURDEN/ONUS point is a good one, it is my experience that the community frowns on repeated removal of maintenance tags by one party in a two-party dispute. My goal here is to share that experience with you, in case it is helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Yeah, neither WP:BURDEN nor WP:ONUS nor WP:BLPRESTORE apply to maintenance templates. I was trying to explain that this general principle occurs in various policies. Regarding the status quo, WP:PREFER offers this option and I took it in this case, but it's an admin-only option and it's optional. Users who are not acting administratively should never revert for the sole purpose of restoring a "status quo".) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for clarifying. Taku (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the article is protected. Regarding the §.Fundamental group, the following reference seems to require the curve to be non-singular. Ref:Nakamura, Hiroaki (2011). "On Galois rigidity of fundamental groups of algebraic curves" (PDF). Non-abelian Fundamental Groups and Iwasawa Theory. pp. 56–71. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511984440.003. ISBN 978-1-107-64885-2. unsingned by User:SilverMatsu.

The protection is over (so you can edit the article). As for the smoothness, I don't think it's necessary a requirement but just that is common to consider a smooth curve. -- Taku (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak ω-category

Where do we explain the weak ω-category that appears when defining the weak n-category in the Leinster's survey? For example, adding a section of ∞-category to the weak n-category, or creating a ω-category? Also, for clarity, we might have to call it "Leinster's weak ω-category" or "Batanin's weak ω-category".

• Leinster, Tom (2001). "A Survey of Definitions of n-Category". arXiv:math/0107188.

SilverMatsu (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a weak n-category, since Leinster's approach is somehow different from quasi-category one. By the way, the question is somehow related to my proposal to have an article on n-category in general. The proposal is at the talkpage of the weak n-category page. -- Taku (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, but I added my comment to the Weak n-category. I'd like to link to this discussion from the article's talk page. Should I use a permanent link?--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been a consensus to merge strict n-category and weak n-category. Closer also agreed to the merge. --SilverMatsu (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Random closed set (June 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Random closed set and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TakuyaMurata! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kobe Kaisei College

The article Kobe Kaisei College has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No refs on page for many years. unencyclopedic content. Needs TNT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JMWt (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kobe Kaisei College for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kobe Kaisei College is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobe Kaisei College until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JMWt (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chiaki Takahashi (disambiguation)

The article Chiaki Takahashi (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No longer needed, as WP:ONEOTHER, based on the unopposed RM Talk:Chiaki Takahashi#Requested move 15 June 2025 (Special:Permalink/1298233662).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference request

Can you try to find a reference for this edit of mine? I think it's correct, and broadly consistent with categorical references I have found, but I have been frustratingly unable to find a clear and explicit statement. I wanted to link Kan extensions in this section, and felt it was important to give some context. Tito Omburo (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tito Omburo:The following references may be relevant.--SilverMatsu (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ref:Cicogna, G. (1978). "Examples of Functor Adjunctions in Elementary Analysis". The American Mathematical Monthly. 85 (4): 260–262. doi:10.2307/2321167. JSTOR 2321167.

Simplicial diagram moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Simplicial diagram. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inertia stack moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Inertia stack. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi TakuyaMurata. Thank you for your work on Riemann's existence theorem. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

As general quality control the proof section should be completed, or this should not be in main.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is such a rule. If you don't believe me, you can ask any other edtitors working in math-related articles, for example, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. -- Taku (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Masayoshi Namiki

The article Masayoshi Namiki has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 20:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ${\displaystyle \infty }$-categorical version of Beck's monadicity theorem

You might be interested in the following discussion:WT:WPM#Lead sentence of Beck's monadicity theorem. I'm wondering whether the place to explain the ${\displaystyle \infty }$-categorical version of Beck's monadicity theorem is the Beck's monadicity theorem or another article of related to Higher Algebra. --SilverMatsu (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak equivalence between simplicial sets

There was a note about the axiom of choice, but I wonder if anafunctors might be related?--SilverMatsu (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I don’t know that notion, so I cannot really say affirmatively or otherwise. —- Taku (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Rezk (2022), the statement seems to relies on the appropriate form of the axiom of choice. --SilverMatsu (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info. We (I?) can update the statement using the ref. —- Taku (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, at the beginning of section 44 of Rezk (2022) were talking about quasi-categories, but when talking about AC in "the Fundamental Theorem of Category Theory", Rezk (2022) seemed to be talking about ordinary categories.--SilverMatsu (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in the precategory, even if AC is assumed, that statement does not seem to hold. Is there an article on Wikipedia that explains precategory? (Or would it be better to add that counterexample to the Equivalence of categories?) Ref:Ahrens, Benedikt; Paige Randall North; Shulman, Michael; Tsementzis, Dimitris (2021). "The Univalence Principle (CHAPTER 3, Categories: an extended example, 3.2. Categories in HoTT)". arXiv:2102.06275 [math.CT]. --SilverMatsu (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a more concise reference:Ahrens, Benedikt; Kapulkin, Krzysztof; Shulman, Michael (2015). "Univalent categories and the :Rezk completion". Mathematical Structures in Computer Science. 25 (5): 1010–1039. doi:10.1017/S0960129514000486.

AC is still required for strict categories, the statement fails even if AC is assumed for precategories, and AC is not required for the proof for saturated categories.--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond: it seems this kind of stuff is usually discussed in the context of constructible mathematics, where for example the matter of AC is important. But I don't know if many readers are interested in that aspect. On the other hand, in Wikipedia, we generally mention AC when it is used, as a matter of style. I will look at what reliable references are doing. -- Taku (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi TakuyaMurata. Thank you for your work on Riemann's existence theorem. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Politicians" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of Politicians has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 7 § List of Politicians until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re Random closed set

Just wanted to say thanks for your work on Random closed set and for moving it to mainspace. I had completely forgotten about that draft! Cheers, – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 12:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. By the way, you can also move it to mainspace yourself. -- Taku (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Figures for 2-category

I created a figure of "associativity coherence isomorphisms" for associativity isomorphism, but will I also create a figure of "unit coherence isomorphisms"? If it is necessary to explain 2-category, I will create it, but what do you think?--SilverMatsu (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if we need a separate article only for associativity, since as you said usually we need coherence isomorphisms for other conditions like unit. One possibility is to merge these into coherency (homotopy theory) as that article has a section on coherent isomorphisms -- Taku (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think it makes sense to explanation both associativity coherence isomorphisms and unit coherence isomorphisms in the section on coherent isomorphisms.--SilverMatsu (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD results seem to be no consensus. I asked the closer and he said was no consensus to merge. (I thought the consensus was merge.) Would you like to discuss merging articles? I don't oppose with the merge to Coherency (homotopy theory). However, when explaining associativity isomorphisms, I am notsure whether to explain it as a concept related to the definition of semi-groupal categories (semi-monoidal category). In coherence (homotopy theory), associativity isomorphism is explained as a concept related to monoidal categories, and I think semi-groupal categories (monoidal category without unit isomorphisms) are a niche concept compared to monoidal categories., and perhaps just as niche as semicategories.--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Helion (publisher)

The article Helion (publisher) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Zero sources, zero evidence of notability, just a small ROTM business.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Proposed deletion of Hagoromo Gakuen Junior College

The article Hagoromo Gakuen Junior College has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced for 14 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Defunct 2-year college; no article exists for its network.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]