Talk:Distance geometry
Distance geometry was nominated as a Mathematics good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 4, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Molecules structure
[edit]It seems that the term is only used for molecules structure?? Tosha 18:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Applications
[edit]Probably, the most "real-life application" is GPS? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Destruction of material by Toninowiki
[edit]A series of edits were done on this article on November 11 by user:Toninowiki, who destroyed all references to higher dimensions, which are crucial to the point of the article. Now someone in another forum is telling me that my link to this article is not much appreciated because it doesn't go into higher dimensions. I've restored the material that was destroyed. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Distance geometry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adamant.pwn (talk · contribs) 23:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Check | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Check | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Check | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. | Check | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Check | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Check | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Check | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Check | |
7. Overall assessment. |
In general, all issues seem easily fixable, except for "Characterization via ... determinants" section. This one seems to need a lot of improvement. Please, update here whenever you fix something or reply to comments. I'll look into it again later. |
Thanks for your very detailed review. I just want to say that the first sentence was an astonishing coincidence, and there is no copyright violation. Now I'll have a cool story to tell.
Since I have no time to update the page, I would have to leave it at that for now. Maybe later I'll update it as suggested. pony in a strange land (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- It actually seems that sentence in wikipedia article was there (since 2014) before the work (published in 2015), so maybe they just copied it. (talk/contribs) 03:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Adamant.pwn and Cosmia Nebula: Hey folks. Just wanted to check in on how this review is progressing since there hasn't seem to been any progress in the past month. :) --Dom497 (talk) 02:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. There was no update from pony in a strange land yet. Should I drop the nomination in this case? (talk/contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Adamant.pwn: I would make one last effort to notify them. If they don't respond within a reasonable amount of time then you can just fail the nomination.--Dom497 (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Adamant.pwn, I have just posted to the nominator's talk page that they need to take action, otherwise the nomination will likely close in a matter of days. May I suggest that if nothing is done, the nomination be closed by the end of September, or if you want to be exceptionally lenient, no later than October 4, two months after they posted
Maybe later I'll update it as suggested
in their sole edit to this page. Under the circumstances and the more than generous delay, I certainly wouldn't leave it open any longer than that. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, fine with me. (talk/contribs) 01:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Adamant.pwn: Still no response from the nominato and the date is October 4, so maybe time to fail this article. HawkAussie (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- It seems so. Nomination is failed. (talk/contribs) 10:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Adamant.pwn, I have just posted to the nominator's talk page that they need to take action, otherwise the nomination will likely close in a matter of days. May I suggest that if nothing is done, the nomination be closed by the end of September, or if you want to be exceptionally lenient, no later than October 4, two months after they posted
This article could use a good deal of improvement
[edit]There are numerous symbols used in the article that are nowhere defined.
This is a terrible idea for an encyclopedia article.
I hope someone can define in the article the symbols tA, tB, tC, and dij, among others. 2601:200:C000:1A0:D814:9114:E269:A7A7 (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- They're defined:
The times it takes for a radio signal to travel from the stations to the receiver,
and d is defined in the sentence beginningExplicitly, we define a semimetric space
MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Content error
[edit]Under “Characterization via Cayley–Menger determinants” it is noted that the following results are proved in Blumenthal's book [12].
Unfortunately, that's wrong. The results presented by Wikipedia only roughly reflect Blumenthal's work and contain errors.
This can easily be checked by means of a simple counterexample: According to Blumenthal, the semimetric space with the distance matrix
0 3 4 8
3 0 1 4
4 1 0 2
8 4 2 0
cannot be embedded in any space Rn, but according to the Wikipedia article it can, namely for n=3.
The Cayley-Menger determinants given by the principal submatrices with elements of the 4, the first 3 and the first 2 lines satisfy the embedding conditions of Wikipedia. However, the remaining three triangles of the potential tetrahedron do not fulfill the triangle inequality.
These misrepresentations of the central theorem of distance geometry are not peanuts.
~~~~