Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archive 1

Archive 1

What does it take for a Talk page to progress past "Talking" to an action taken? Robin Williams commit suicide/died by suicide

Hi,

I came across the Robin Williams "committed suicide". Based on the most recent medical and mental health research, this should be changed to "died by suicide". However, when I went to edit, there was a notice that said specifically not to change "Committed suicide" and to go to the Talk page for additional information.

The Talk" page has extensive discussion to change the sentence to "died by suicide" with credible supporting data. However despite all the discussion, no final action to change "commit suicide" to "death by suicide" has been taken. This indicates a lack of decision making "somewhere".

Is the individual who put in "don't change this term" someone who has authority over this article, and if so, why haven't they addressed the indication that the correct term by 2020 standards is "died by suicide"? Or was this direction (to not change it) arbitrarily entered by another user, and therefore someone without authority?

66.31.67.37 (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Nobody has autority over any WP article, so it must be your own lack of decision making. Go and change the wording if you believe you know the 2020 standards. 2003:F5:6F0C:9500:ADC4:5DDA:DFDD:360E (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Marco PB

This isn't really a suitable query for the Reference Desk. I suggest you copy your post and insert it either at the Robin Williams article's talk page or at the Help desk. Deor (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus on Wikipedia is that "commit suicide" is normal English and fine for use.--Khajidha (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I would like to hear the OP explain what they think the distinction would be between the two terms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The OP has posted links to three pages. I picked one of these at random: "Why mental health advocates use the words 'died by suicide'" (NBC). The strapline [not sure if this is the correct term] is: "By changing the way we speak, we remove the culpability from the person who has lost their life." Thus it's not necessary even to skimread the article to know that the distinction, or anyway a distinction, is: Seeming to blame, versus not seeming to blame, the person who killed themself. I haven't thought about the matter and don't want to give an opinion, but it appears that the OP has a point that's worth consideration. I don't think that the right place for a discussion is here (because no guidelines are made here), the article's talk page (because if it's worth consideration, it's worth consideration for far more than one biography), or the help desk (which tells people how to do things according to existing policy). Possibly Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), though I suspect that even that is not the best place. Wherever it's proposed, whoever proposes it should have worked on the draft to phrase what's posted for maximum persuasiveness. (This won't be easy, as verbosity will count against it.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Not Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (at first, anyway), but perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). The problem is that a discussion did start at Talk:Robin Williams, and proceeded some way. Attempting to start a different discussion of the same question at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) will probably bring an immediate accusation of "forum shopping" and a quick closure. If the discussion was improper, then you could claim this. Meanwhile, I'll point out that as "die by suicide" (or other retention of "suicide" without "commit") raises the hackles of some people, you could simply bypass "suicide" as well; for example: "In August 2014, at age 63, Williams {killed himself by hanging} / {hung himself} at his home in Paradise Cay, California. His widow, Susan Schneider Williams, attributed this to his struggle with Lewy body disease, as did the autopsy and medical experts." -- Hoary (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't there already an RFC about this a while ago? Maybe look in the Village Pump or WP:MOS archives.

Anyway, my objection to "died by suicide" is not that it removes "blame" from the person, but that it removes agency. It makes it sound like something that just happened to the person, rather than something the person did. I don't mind "killed himself", at least not for that reason, though it does strike me as a bit blunt. --Trovatore (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It sounds kind of euphemistic or passive-voice. As you say, it's as if someone else did it. Wikipedia is not about being "politically correct". If there were a consistent manual-of-style guideline, we would then also have to say "death by murder", etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Which unfortunately brings to mind the comedy film Murder by Death. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.211.254 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This being the language desk, I have to insist that it is not passive voice. Syntactically, it's definitely active voice. It's semantically similar to passive constructions, though — see unaccusative verb. --Trovatore (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should revive the old-fashioned "died by his own hand". (Or "killed by his own hand", as I saw it rendered once, although that rather brings to mind Evil Dead II). Iapetus (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If you take the idiom "killed by his own hand" too literally, it could bring to mind Alien hand syndrome (a.k.a. "Dr. Strangelove syndrome")... AnonMoos (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Since there's not really a good verb form for "suicide", I think in the case we are describing directly how someone died, it would be best to stick with "killed himself." Or, if in dispute, until a consensus is established as to which is best, then just go with how the majority of sources describe it. Ditch ∝ 23:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem with using how the majority of sources describe it is that they often don't. They beat around the bush. They talk about the person's depression, or mental health issues, or in one case I saw recently "stopped taking his prescribed medication". Readers are left to work it out for themselves. Wikipedia is clearly not the only organisation finding it difficult to find perfect words to say someone killed themselves. I personally have no issue with "committed suicide", but I'm old and often see no need to change an expression that's never bothered me in the past. I also wonder how universal this issue is across the English speaking world. Is the attempt to find different words limited to the United States? (Not picking on that country, but it's relevant to the Robin Williams case which began this discussion.) Having written that, I looked at Shane Tuck, an Australian footballer who died three days ago. After his death his article initially said "died after committing suicide", but it was changed earlier today by an apparently Australian based IP editor to "died by suicide", with an Edit summary of ""Committing suicide" makes it sound like a crime, i.e. "committing murder" or "committing an armed robbery". We need to be careful about the terminology we use around the insidious illness that is depression." So it seems the same debate exists in Australia, without a uniform view on the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Suicide has become the taboo subject of the new millennium and naming it has to be avoided or at least euphemised. Much as homosexual men were once described as "confirmed bachelors". That at least was understandable, as homosexual acts were illegal everywhere back then. But so what if suicide is still illegal in some places? We don't shrink from graphically describing murders, genocides, rape, and all manner of non-fatal violence. The more gruesome, the better. But if you do it to yourself, we have be to sensitive and not say it in so many words. Whom is it we're protecting? The bereaved family and friends? Gimme a break. Nothing would be worse than becoming aware of the event in the first place. The media doesn't give a toss about the family and friends of murder victims. Unforgiveable double standards. </rant> -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The "died by suicide" brigade don't give a toss about the people really hurt by suicide - the wives, children. siblings, families, friends, of those who kill themselves. But we've got to be oh so sensitive not to say anything negative about dead people who have inflicted permanent hurt upon living people. Suicide is a supremely selfish action. DuncanHill (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It is precisely this oft-repeated lie that makes people insist on expressions like died by suicide. Suicide is something that happens to people, not something they do, so any expression implying agency on the victim's part is misleading, including the expression killed themselves. Suicide is caused by mental illness, not by a free decision made by someone of sound mind. Robin Williams's suicide was due to dementia. The use of non-misleading expressions can only help those left behind, as it can only be easier to live with the knowledge that mental disease killed their loved one than to falsely believe that the victim caused their own death. There is nothing to be gained by using a misleading expression when there are other expressions available. The insistence on the factually incorrect expression committed suicide seems to be due to an emotionally immature lack of empathy for suicide victims and their families combined with an equally childish notion that one's own wish to use a given expression should trump any other concern. Getting angry when told to be nice to people is the reaction of a child, not of an emotionally mature adult. 2A02:2121:303:C022:E8C9:4E68:1EA:7B83 (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

While I disagree with "died by suicide" on the basis that suicide involves free will, otherwise it would be called an accident or a killing, I agree that victim-blaming is at best highly counterproductive. Who ever thought that putting the weight of families and friends on someone's shoulders makes people suffering from depression want to go on living? Did you realize that the same argument is used in favor of suicide in some cultures: "imagine the shame my family will face if I ignore this error I made"? DuncanHill, I think it would be best if you didn't mention this opinion near anyone you think may be tempted to commit suicide. 93.136.103.194 (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Suicide is something that happens to people, not something they do" is factually false. Unless you're arguing for the medieval notion of the victim being "possessed by a demon". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember where it was the last time it came up, but I do remember that we recognize the distinction of "committed suicide" and "died by suicide" is that some countries see it as a crime so it is better to use "died by suicide" for such deaths in those countries, whereas in places like the US, where this isn't the case, "committed suicide" has been standard language. So this is like following the national language pref, not because we were doing it out of respect. But if there is a valid argument that we should standardize on "died by suicide" across the board, that needs to be a sitewide RFC to establish that. --Masem (t) 05:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian Style Guide mandates the use of "killed himseld/herself" in place of committed suicide, since commit implies a crime, which suicide now isn't and says that some relatives would object to the old term.--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've never quite understood that argument. There's no crime in committing something to memory; the word "commit" has zero pejorative connotation in any other sense. --Jayron32 15:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. "Commit" does NOT imply a crime. Language means what it means in normal usage, not what someone claims it implies, and these days nobody regards suicide as a crime. I don't comprehend that argument at all. It's not convincing in the slightest. It's probably more likely to encourage me to push harder to retain that language. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

BTW - What people say in most wedding vows is often described as making a commitment to life with a partner. Clearly not a crime. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We should commit ourselves to using good English. "Died by suicide" is bloody awful English, and makes me want to kill myself. Look up hyperbole before you go running to nanny. DuncanHill (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There is also the somewhat old-fashioned (but not obsolete) phrase "died by his/her own hand". It has a sense of agency and does not appear to suggest wrongdoing.  --Lambiam 11:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Nor does "committed suicide". Unless committing to marriage suggests wrongdoing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are different meanings completely; the latter has nothing to do with this conversation. The parallel is to committing a crime, and that's where the suggestion of wrongdoing comes in. "Commit: carry out or perpetrate (a mistake, crime, or immoral act)" says the first dicdef I stumbled on, and the point of those who call for this change in usage is to remove the moral approbation from the description of the means of death. From a Wikipedian point of view, I'd say using "commit" applies a non-neutral POV, even though it's a commonplace non-neutral POV. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean approbation? --Trovatore (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

probably not, but the word sounded nice.--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

opprobrium.  --Lambiam 22:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: - When I say someone "committed suicide" I mean it in a completely neutral way. It's simply a description of something that happened. No moral judgement involved at all. Who are you to be able to claim that ANYONE says it with a non-neutral POV? Your claim itself is potentially quite insulting. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't much bother me. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think the phrase "commit suicide" aptly conveys the "commitment" intrinsic to the act of suicide. Bus stop (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  @HiLo48 and Bus stop: – Which of the 10 senses listed at Wiktionary for the English verb commit covers the use in commit suicide best, in your opinion? (Obviously you can rule out the intransitive senses, but that leaves seven transitive ones. And sense 6 is only transitive when used reflexively, so that one does not fit.)  --Lambiam 22:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

As JackofOz points out below, the meaning of individual words in a common expression is irrelevant. The meaning of the whole expression is all that matters, and we all know what "commit suicide" means. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• The problem with idioms, which "commit suicide" surely is, is that they usually cannot be analysed word by word with a reasonable expectation of coming up with the meaning. Two plus two does not usually equal four in such matters. Since time immemorial, we have said "commit suicide" - not "make suicide" or "do suicide" or "complete suicide" or anything else. True, suicide has been technically illegal in some places, but you can't prosecute a dead person, so the only crime worth realistically considering is attempted suicide, in which case we don't even use the word "commit". In that case we say "he attempted suicide". When was the last time anyone was ever prosecuted for such a heinous "crime"? Being the sole survivor of a joint suicide attempt is a different matter. So the whole supposed criminal aspect of suicide in the above debate is an utter furphy. When someone says "He committed suicide" in response to "How did he die?", neither party to the conversation has any thought of any law being broken. The whole basis of this issue is lacking any substance. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  In many countries you can have to do prison time for attempted suicide; see Suicide legislation. I see no instances of the death penalty for this crime. Until relatively recently, the Catholic Church punished people who died by their own hand by depriving them of a "Christian burial" (see Christian views on suicide). Just like there was a time when white folks thought appearing in blackface was an innocent joke, unaware of the racist history and background, people may now think the idiom is neutral, unaware of the original meaning.  --Lambiam 15:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A generalization of minimal prime

A minimal prime is a prime number for which there is no shorter subsequence of its digits in a given base that form a prime. In base 10 there are exactly 26 minimal primes:

2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 19, 41, 61, 89, 409, 449, 499, 881, 991, 6469, 6949, 9001, 9049, 9649, 9949, 60649, 666649, 946669, 60000049, 66000049, 66600049

And this problem can be generalized to other bases, since there are no infinite antichain of the subsequence ordering, in every base there are only finitely many minimal primes.

Base (b): the set of minimal primes (written in base b)

2: {10, 11}

3: {2, 10, 111}

4: {2, 3, 11}

5: {2, 3, 10, 111, 401, 414, 14444, 44441}

6: {2, 3, 5, 11, 4401, 4441, 40041}

7: {2, 3, 5, 10, 14, 16, 41, 61, 11111}

8: {2, 3, 5, 7, 111, 141, 161, 401, 661, 4611, 6101, 6441, 60411, 444641, 444444441}

9: {2, 3, 5, 7, 14, 18, 41, 81, 601, 661, 1011, 1101}

10: {2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 19, 41, 61, 89, 409, 449, 499, 881, 991, 6469, 6949, 9001, 9049, 9649, 9949, 60649, 666649, 946669, 60000049, 66000049, 66600049}

11: {2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 16, 18, 49, 61, 81, 89, 94, 98, 9A, 199, 1AA, 414, 919, A1A, AA1, 11A9, 66A9, A119, A911, AAA9, 11144, 11191, 1141A, 114A1, 1411A, 144A4, 14A11, 1A114, 1A411, 4041A, 40441, 404A1, 4111A, 411A1, 44401, 444A1, 44A01, 6A609, 6A669, 6A696, 6A906, 6A966, 90901, 99111, A0111, A0669, A0966, A0999, A0A09, A4401, A6096, A6966, A6999, A9091, A9699, A9969, 401A11, 404001, 404111, 440A41, 4A0401, 4A4041, 60A069, 6A0096, 6A0A96, 6A9099, 6A9909, 909991, 999901, A00009, A60609, A66069, A66906, A69006, A90099, A90996, A96006, A96666, 111114A, 1111A14, 1111A41, 1144441, 14A4444, 1A44444, 4000111, 4011111, 41A1111, 4411111, 444441A, 4A11111, 4A40001, 6000A69, 6000A96, 6A00069, 9900991, 9990091, A000696, A000991, A006906, A040041, A141111, A600A69, A906606, A909009, A990009, 40A00041, 60A99999, 99000001, A0004041, A9909006, A9990006, A9990606, A9999966, 40000A401, 44A444441, 900000091, A00990001, A44444111, A66666669, A90000606, A99999006, A99999099, 600000A999, A000144444, A900000066, A0000000001, A0014444444, 40000000A0041, A000000014444, A044444444441, A144444444411, 40000000000401, A0000044444441, A00000000444441, 11111111111111111, 14444444444441111, 44444444444444111, A1444444444444444, A9999999999999996, 1444444444444444444, 4000000000000000A041, A999999999999999999999, A44444444444444444444444441, 40000000000000000000000000041, 440000000000000000000000000001, 999999999999999999999999999999991, 444444444444444444444444444444444444444444441}

12: {2, 3, 5, 7, B, 11, 61, 81, 91, 401, A41, 4441, A0A1, AAAA1, 44AAA1, AAA0001, AA000001}

And this is already researching in [1], all bases 2 ≤ b ≤ 16 and b = 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 30 are already solved (bases b = 13 and b = 23 needs primality proving of the probable primes), also other bases b ≤ 30 are almost solved.

A generalization of these primes are in a given base b, a prime number > b for which there is no shorter subsequence of its digits that form a prime > b, in base 10 there are exactly 77 such primes:

11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, 227, 251, 257, 277, 281, 349, 409, 449, 499, 521, 557, 577, 587, 727, 757, 787, 821, 827, 857, 877, 881, 887, 991, 2087, 2221, 5051, 5081, 5501, 5581, 5801, 5851, 6469, 6949, 8501, 9001, 9049, 9221, 9551, 9649, 9851, 9949, 20021, 20201, 50207, 60649, 80051, 666649, 946669, 5200007, 22000001, 60000049, 66000049, 66600049, 80555551, 555555555551, 5000000000000000000000000000027

And I have already proved that this set is complete, for bases 2 ≤ b ≤ 6 it is easy to prove:

Base (b): the set of such primes (written in base b)

2: {11}

3: {12, 21, 111}

4: {11, 13, 23, 31, 221}

5: {12, 21, 23, 32, 34, 43, 104, 111, 131, 133, 313, 401, 414, 3101, 10103, 14444, 30301, 33001, 33331, 44441, 300031, 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000013}

6: {11, 15, 21, 25, 31, 35, 45, 51, 4401, 4441, 40041}

Also, I conjectured that the set of such primes in base b = 7, 8, 9 are

Base (b): the set of such primes (written in base b)

7: {14, 16, 23, 25, 32, 41, 43, 52, 56, 61, 65, 113, 115, 131, 133, 155, 212, 221, 304, 313, 335, 344, 346, 364, 445, 515, 533, 535, 544, 551, 553, 1022, 1051, 1112, 1202, 1211, 1222, 2111, 3031, 3055, 3334, 3503, 3505, 3545, 4504, 4555, 5011, 5455, 5545, 5554, 6034, 6634, 11111, 11201, 30011, 30101, 31001, 31111, 33001, 33311, 35555, 40054, 100121, 150001, 300053, 351101, 531101, 1100021, 33333301, 5100000001, 33333333333333331}

8: {13, 15, 21, 23, 27, 35, 37, 45, 51, 53, 57, 65, 73, 75, 107, 111, 117, 141, 147, 161, 177, 225, 255, 301, 343, 361, 401, 407, 417, 431, 433, 463, 467, 471, 631, 643, 661, 667, 701, 711, 717, 747, 767, 3331, 3411, 4043, 4443, 4611, 5205, 6007, 6101, 6441, 6477, 6707, 6777, 7461, 7641, 47777, 60171, 60411, 60741, 444641, 500025, 505525, 3344441, 4444477, 5500525, 5550525, 55555025, 444444441, 744444441, 77774444441, 7777777777771, 555555555555525, 44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444447}

9: {12, 14, 18, 21, 25, 32, 34, 41, 45, 47, 52, 58, 65, 67, 74, 78, 81, 87, 117, 131, 135, 151, 155, 175, 177, 238, 272, 308, 315, 331, 337, 355, 371, 375, 377, 438, 504, 515, 517, 531, 537, 557, 564, 601, 638, 661, 702, 711, 722, 735, 737, 751, 755, 757, 771, 805, 838, 1011, 1015, 1101, 1701, 2027, 2207, 3017, 3057, 3101, 3501, 3561, 3611, 3688, 3868, 5035, 5051, 5071, 5101, 5501, 5554, 5705, 5707, 7017, 7075, 7105, 7301, 8535, 8544, 8555, 8854, 20777, 22227, 22777, 30161, 33388, 50161, 50611, 53335, 55111, 55535, 55551, 57061, 57775, 70631, 71007, 77207, 100037, 100071, 100761, 105007, 270707, 301111, 305111, 333035, 333385, 333835, 338885, 350007, 500075, 530005, 555611, 631111, 720707, 2770007, 3030335, 7776662, 30300005, 30333335, 38333335, 51116111, 70000361, 300030005, 300033305, 351111111, 1300000007, 5161111111, 8333333335, 300000000035, 311111111161, 544444444444, 2000000000007, 5700000000001, 88888888833335, 100000000000507, 5111111111111161, 8888888888888888888335, 30000000000000000000051, 1000000000000000000000000057, 56111111111111111111111111111111111111, 7666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662, 27777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777707, 300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000011}

but I cannot prove that these three sets are complete.

Problem: Are my sets of bases 7, 8, 9 complete? If so, prove that they are complete, otherwise, complete these three sets and prove that your sets are complete. Also, Find this set in bases 11 ≤ b ≤ 36, and prove that these sets are complete.

——118.170.50.5 (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Why cross product can not be defined in a 15, 31, 63, etc. dimension space?

We can use quaternion to define the cross product in a 3-dimension space, or use octonion to define it in a 7-dimension space, but why can’t we use sedenion to define it in a 15-dimension space? ——2402:7500:917:30C4:F49C:9CA3:EEE6:A404 (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Does there exist such quadratic polynomial?

Does there exist a quadratic polynomial $ax^{2}+bx+c$ (a, b, c are integers, a > 0) such that the density of the set of the positive integers x such that $ax^{2}+bx+c$ is prime (over the set of all positive integers) is ≥5%? If it is possible, give a such polynomial, otherwise, prove that there is no such polynomial. ——2402:7500:917:30C4:54AA:108F:3ECB:103F (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, but some interesting related content is at Ulam spiral § Hardy and Littlewood's Conjecture F. —Kusma (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Most abstract theory?

What is the theory with the highest level of abstraction? Category theory?--2A02:908:426:D280:5CC6:CA68:2369:2F26 (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not a question that uses terminology precise enough to give a definitive answer, but if you will excuse a flippant one, if category theory is a particular approach to generalised abstract nonsense, there is room for a more general approach. More seriously, type theory can formalise any abstraction category theory can, but typically category theorists like to work at a higher level of abstraction than type theorists. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

“Infinite-touchable numbers”

Let $s(n)$ be the aliquot sum function, i.e. $s(n)=\sum \nolimits _{d|n,\ d\neq n}d$, an untouchable number is a number not in the range of s, a “2-untouchable number” is a number in the range of s but not in the range of s² (OEIS: A283152), a “3-untouchable number” is a number in the range of s² but not in the range of s³ (OEIS: A284147), and an “infinite-touchable number” is a number in the range of sⁿ for all positive integers n, find the sequence of the infinite-touchable numbers (I cannot find this sequence in OEIS), we can assume the strong version of Goldbach conjecture is true, i.e. every even number ≥ 8 are the sum of two distinct primes. ——2402:7500:917:30C4:F49C:9CA3:EEE6:A404 (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Domino tiling

A domino tiling of a rectangle may contain no straight line from an side to its opposite side, the smallest such example is 5×6 rectangle, and no example of 6×6 rectangle exists, however, all examples I found has an cross in the tiling, does there exist a domino tiling of a rectangle contain neither a straight line from an side to its opposite side nor a cross? I cannot find an example, nor can prove that such tiling does not exist. ——2402:7500:917:30C4:F49C:9CA3:EEE6:A404 (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

By a cross, do you mean a point where four corners meet? In other words, does the tiling, viewed as a tatami layout, need to be auspicious?  --Lambiam 16:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Can a binary operation satisfying all these four properties simultaneously?

Can a binary operation (other than the trivial case, i.e. the set has only 0 or 1 element) satisfy all these four properties simultaneously?

1. Idempotence
2. Commutative property
3. Associative property
4. Cancellation property

e.g. the addition operation in the set of real numbers satisfies properties 2, 3, 4 but not 1, and the multiplicative group of integers modulo n also satisfies properties 2, 3, 4 but not 1, the greatest common divisor operation in the set of positive integers satisfies properties 1, 2, 3 but not 4 (e.g. gcd(6,8) = gcd(6,10) but 8 ≠ 10), and the union operation in the set of set also satisfies properties 1, 2, 3 but not 4.

——2402:7500:917:30C4:F49C:9CA3:EEE6:A404 (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Denoting the operation by juxtaposition, we have a(ab) = (aa)b = ab = ba = (bb)a = b(ba) = b(ab). By cancellation, we obtain from a(ab) = b(ab) that a = b.  --Lambiam 16:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

de Bruijn–Newman constant

What is the currently known best upper bound and lower bound of the de Bruijn–Newman constant? Besides, is the Riemann hypothesis proven? ——118.170.50.5 (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

We list the Riemann hypothesis in the list of unsolved problems in mathematics. The alleged proof by de Branges is still regarded with skepticism. If some other serious mathematician has thought to have settled its status, they have either retracted this, or kept it a well-guarded secret.  --Lambiam 16:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It follows that the lower bound on the de Bruijn–Newman constant has not been sharpened since the Rodgers–Tao result was obtained.  --Lambiam 16:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the set of the polyhedrons whose faces are all regular polygons? (not need to be convex or uniform, and there is no requirement that each face must be the same polygon)

Regular polyhedron does not need to be convex, the convex regular polyhedrons are the 5 Platonic solids, and there are 9 non-convex regular polyhedrons, including the 4 Kepler–Poinsot polyhedrons and the 5 regular compounds, and for the semiregular polyhedrons, there are 13 convex ones other than the convex prisms and the convex antiprisms, but what are the non-convex ones? And for the polyhedrons with each face regular polygons or regular star polygons, there are 92 convex ones other than the regular polyhedrons and the semiregular polyhedrons, but what are the non-convex ones? (These would include the 4 Kepler–Poinsot polyhedrons, the 5 regular compounds, the stellated octahedron, the 53 nonconvex uniform polyhedras, the uniform star prisms, the uniform star antiprisms, the augmented heptagonal prism, the pentagrammic prism, the deltahedras, the toroidal prisms, etc.)

Polyhedrons whose faces are all regular polygons or regular star polygons

Convex?	Uniform? (i.e. Identical vertices?)	Each face are the same polygon? (i.e. Identical faces?)	Class
True	True	True	5 Platonic solids
True	True	False	infinite convex uniform prisms, infinite convex uniform antiprisms, 13 Archimedean solids
True	False	True	8 convex deltahedra, except the 3 Platonic solids (thus, totally 5 such polyhedrons)
True	False	False	92 Johnson solids, except the 5 deltahedra (thus, totally 87 such polyhedrons)
False	True	True	4 Kepler–Poinsot polyhedrons
False	True	False	infinite uniform star prisms and uniform star antiprisms, 53 nonconvex uniform polyhedras
False	False	True	infinite non-convex deltahedra
False	False	False	? (this is exactly my question, what is the set of such polyhedrons, I know that this set includes the augmented heptagonal prism)

(Polyhedrons whose faces are not all regular polygons, such as the Catalan solids, the hexagonal pyramid, the near-miss Johnson solids, the parallelepiped, the rhombic icosahedron, the Szilassi polyhedron, the Császár polyhedron; and the polyhedrons with 180° dihedral angles, such as this one; and the non-connected polyhedrons, such as the crossed prisms; and the degenerate polyhedras, such as dihedron and hosohedron; and the infinity forms, such as triangular tiling, square tiling, hexagonal tiling, trihexagonal tiling, snub trihexagonal tiling, truncated trihexagonal tiling, apeirogonal prism, apeirogonal antiprism; are not in this set)

Reference: [2]

——118.170.50.5 (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Some families are infinite, such as the uniform prisms. Is an argument known for there being only a finite number of infinite families? Or is it possible there are arbitrarily complex polyhedra meeting the requirements that are not produced by some regular generative principle?  --Lambiam 15:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Merging/combining multiple corpora

Hi, does anyone know how to merge or combine multiple corpora into one using AntConc?

(Not unnconnectedly, if someone happens to know where ISBN 978-1118534458/OCLC 982183718 (Dirk Speelman, Mastering Corpus Linguistics Methods: A Practical Introduction with Antconc and R (Wiley Blackwell: Chichester, West Sussex, 2017) is on the internet/libraries in terms of availability could you let me know? Cheers!) ——Serial 19:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)