User talk:D.Lazard

Primary Decomposition

You should check the talk page for primary decomposition. I fixed the example there. Can you add it onto the main page with the correct terminology?

About polynomial function

I strongly disagree with your decision to redo my changes to Polynomial function. As said in the article, this is not a content fork, the concept of polynomial and polynomial function are NOT the same thing (the polynomial X(X-1) is non zero in Z/2Z but the associated polynomial function is). Notice also that there are specific articles about polynomial functions in a lot of other languages.

I know the article is lacking sources right now, I am working on it. But I don't think redo my changes (decided by yourself alone) without discussing it first is a clever way to do things on Wikipedia.

Valvino (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Not the right place for this discussion. I'll answer on the talk page of the article. D.Lazard (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"as explained below"

makes life difficult for readers (it is unexplanatory and vague; it also suggests information is being presented in the wrong order), and two in one sentence is really over the top! --JBL (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Square-free integer

I appreciate the work you've done on this article. Please try to cite your sources, as many Wikipedia math articles are quite paltry when it comes to verifiable, inline sources. Wqwt (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

To editor Wqwt: I agree that sources are important, but content (understandability, context, ...) is also important. It appears that, in mathematics, editors who are good for writing articles and editors that are good for finding sources are not always the same. In my case, after a long mathematical career, I am generally unable to remember where I have learnt things that I know. It is thus difficult for me to provide sources. In the case of my edits in this article, one may think of them as aimed for making WP:CALC applicable to it. In fact, as soon as the content is expressed in terms of the prime factorization, everything becomes trivial. This is probably the reason why square-free integers are not widely considered in textbooks. As far as I know, the concept has been introduced for integers only by analogy with the more important concept of square-free polynomial. This is the reason for having expanded the comparison with polynomials at the end of the section. D.Lazard (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I find most of my sources by Google, in particular Google Scholar. I don't trust my memory and it is always nice to have a source to back up my beliefs. There is also more info to be learned from looking over these papers. I'm not concerned with WP:CALC stuff like factoring 54, but with higher level math claims (like those about time complexity) which aren't obvious at all. Wqwt (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

3RR warning

Hi! I have been discussing the changes to the e page on its Talk page. It seems that a couple of people really really want the table I edited to end with the Wozniak entry. Wozniak is definitely a cool guy and that seems to be the impetus for some to undo my addition; I have, can, and will defend my position, however, and wish you had read the there before undoing my entry. (Some find the addition acceptable.) Since I rarely edit Wikipedia pages, I do not know how to move this dispute up the chain. If you could let me know, I'd be most grateful. Thanks. Owlice1 (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

To editor Owlice1: When you have been reverted by six different editors, this means that there is a strong WP:Consensus against your edit. So, continuing this dispute is WP:disruptive editing. The best you have to do is to give up. D.Lazard (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There is not strong consensus, however. There does seem to be vicious protection of the Wozniak entry, however. I like Wozniak a great deal, but liking him is a silly reason to prevent someone from editing the page to present a useful addition; it appears a few people really want his entry to stand as last and have banded together to make that happen. There's no clique like a Wikepedian clique, alas. Owlice1 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)