Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2024/Dec

Draft:Codenominator Function

I am requesting a review of this draft. It needs at least one more reliable source, but my question has to do with whether the topic is notable and the draft should be developed further. I'm a chemist, not a mathematician, and I know enough mathematics to know that a mathematician should review this draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The one reference, a 2022 paper, is the only hit for "codenominator" in MathSciNet. There are more hits in Google Scholar but they appear unrelated. The only citation to the source in Google Scholar is by the same authors. I think the source is reliable, but with only one primary source, WP:TOOSOON to be notable, regardless of its mathematical content. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

balance puzzle

may someone be so kind to look at my comments in the talk page? thanks. 151.29.39.54 (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 17:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Balance_puzzle. --JBL (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for opinion on edit to List of Mersenne primes

On 3 November, I made two edits Special:Diff/1255182695 and Special:Diff/1255197206 which were promptly reverted Special:Diff/1255250737 by Szelma W (talk · contribs). On 5 November, I created Talk:List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers#Recent reversion - is anything salvageable? to discuss the matter, as the revert's edit summary "It was better" didn't really give me a lot to go on.

The problem is, that editor normally edits about once a week with occasional longer gaps, but it's approaching 3 weeks now and they haven't been around to expand on those words. That in itself is not grounds for me to take offence; presumably their Real Life got busy and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not compulsory.

But I'd like to discuss it with someone before just un-reverting. Is anyone up to having a look at those edits (particularly the larger second one) and their justification on the talk page, and expressing an opinion? Note that this is not the usual after-lengthy-debate request for a 3rd opinion; in this case there has been almost no debate and there are no hurt feelings to worry about. You're free to make your own edit in lieu of any of the available versions, or give me some advice or whatever you like. I just don't trust my own judgment on what's an improvement in this particular case.

Thank you very much!

(I'm sure that re-reading my own edit after three weeks, I'll find something to improve, but I've avoided doing that so far since adding a third version to the discussion is of no use until there's a discussion to add it to.) 97.102.205.224 (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

One question from me: why would you break the whole paragraph into several pieces? For example, the first paragraph is meant to be a basic explanation of the background of the Mersenne primes and perfect numbers briefly, with the target started for the audience who did not understand anything about those classes of numbers; the second one is meant to the next step advanced level to understand more about the relationship between those numbers. Breaking them up into several paragraphs, just like you did in your edits, was meant to be each paragraph with overlapping topics between two classes as in the second paragraph you wrote about the perfect numbers and Euler proved the relationship between Mersenne primes and even perfect numbers, with this and that and this and that ... Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: Thank you for the feedback! I was trying to get "one idea per paragraph". It used to be that the first paragraph talked about Mersenne primes, then started talking about perfect numbers. The second paragraph kept talking about even perfect numbers. I re-broke it so all the prime talk was in the first paragraph, and all the (even) perfect number information was in the second. This seemed (and still seems) better organized to me. (Thus my comment on the talk page "note the paragraph break in place of 'Meanwhile'.")

Once I started down this path, I tried to have topic-focused paragraphs, with a paragraph break where there was a change of focus:

1. Mersenne primes
2. (Even) Perfect numbers and the Euclid–Euler theorem
3. Odd perfect numbers (open problem)
4. Infinitiude (open problem)
5. Source of values in the table
6. Tentative numbering of 49–52

As I wrote in the edit summary, "Seriously rework lead to keep each paragraph focused on one idea. "

I'm trying to open a topic, say something about it, and then close the topic for the benefit of a lay reader who can't keep too many new (to them) ideas in their head at once. There are links between paragraphs, but they're weaker than the links within paragraphs. I also tried to order things so links between paragraphs were short but in logical order. Thus, I moved discussion of odd perfect numbers to immediately after the paragraph about even perfect numbers, pushing the infinitude issue down a little. The latter is more coupled to the list itself and the mechanics of search efforts, while new paragraphs 2 and 3 answer the question implied by the article title: "why is the list of Mersenne primes and the list of perfect numbers the same list?"

I feel that's an important question to give a clear answer to, and that clarity is served by separating the odd perfect number discussion from the infinitude question.

I'm quite interested in this discussion. To me, the reorganization is Obviously Better, and the point of the edit comment was mostly to draw other editors' attention to that over bikeshedding potential minor wording issues that could be fixed easily enough.

If it's not obvious to you, I have something to learn. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The article List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers has featured-list status, following the criteria of WP:FLCR. Per WP:TECHNICAL, they are quick summaries to make the (non-mathematics) readers understand, so you don't have to write an over-detailed explanation. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr: And I'm not trying to add details. I added no information, just reordered and regrouped what was already there. A second worry I had was that without a clear focus, the more open-ended style of the article before I edited it it would tempt an editor to add more detail. One of my goals in having discussion of a point end after its paragraph is to reduce the temptation to elaborate. The two critical points I think the article must cover are:

• how the list was made, and the prospects for its extension, and
• why the two lists are the same list.

If you see extraneous fluff that doesn't contribute to those points, I'm happy to delete it.

Would you mind if I copied & migrated this discussion to the article talk page? I think we will eventually want it archived there. (One way to agree is to do it yourself, of course.) 97.102.205.224 (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think changes should be added. The article is already in good shape. You can ask the nominator of the FL, but I am worried that one declared its issue in real life. So, you just have to wait for other responses in this project. But if you keep insisting on creating a draft in this place, I don't mind it; or you can create a sandbox: Talk:List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers/sandbox Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

As for why the two lists are the same list: we have a separate Good Article on that, Euclid–Euler theorem. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Yes, and the text in the List article should be mostly a pointer to that, but I think the List article needs to say at least "there is a 1-1 correspondence between Mersenne primes and even perfect numbers due to the Euclid-Euler theorem, and it is unknown whether any odd perfect numbers exist, so the list below is all known perfect numbers." Maybe a few more words about the fact that the known constraints on odd perfect numbers are so tight most people suspect there are none, but that's negotiable.

The current text does explain the separate contributions of Euclid and Euler, which is also negotiable if abbreviation is desired.

It's just the fact that there is a theorem about even perfect numbers and an open question about odd perfect numbers (there are no known. nor a non-constructive existence proof, nor a disproof) that needs to be (IMHO) stated explicitly in the List article. I'd be opposed to e.g. merely mentioning Euclid-Euler and expecting the reader to know what it says.

(I'm happy to assume it's obvious to even a lay reader that all natural numbers are either even or odd. Going all Russell & Whitehead would not help clarity.)

---

(Deep breath.)

Circling back, while I don't mind also discussing what material should be in the List article, I'd like to not lose sight of my proposed reorganization which has no substantial additions or deletions of material.

It's particularly discouraging that the tangential discussion about what should or shouldn't be included has never gotten close to a specific proposal for an addition or deletion. If nobody's proposing such a thing, why are we wasting electrons discussing it? Are we in violent agreement that the List article should not be expanded?

I've been expounding at length on why I think the reorganization is an improvement, and my perception of the responses so far has been vague skepticism, neither agreeing nor explicitly disagreeing. If I'm wrong about it being an improvement, I'd urgently like to understand why, because the ability to judge good and bad writing is important to my ability to edit Wikipedia at all.

Thank you for your comments. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Partial trace

Hello. I came across Partial trace as part of the soon-to-be-ending WP:NOV24 unreferenced articles drive. It has been completely unsourced for some 15 years, and looks mathematics-y, but it is beyond me to try and sort out. I was hoping that a kind soul in WP:WPMATHS might be able to take it on. Or recommend a better project to ask for help. Thank you! SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Partial traces are commonly found in Google Books and Scholars. Just wait for it, although I am not an expert in this field. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much Dedhert.Jr and Michael Hardy for your help with the article. Hugely appreciated! SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)