Content deleted Content added
→Discussion: pro-subscript reply |
→Skolem problem: Reply |
||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{FailedGA|16:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)|topic=Mathematics and mathematicians|page=1|oldid=1219582549}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Mathematics| priority = mid}}
{{WikiProject Computer science|importance=low}}
}}
{{Old peer review|ID=1070410909|reviewedname=Constant-recursive sequence|date=1 March 2022|archive=2}}
{{Old peer review|ID=1059493640|reviewedname=Constant-recursive sequence|date=19 December 2021|archive=1}}
== Be more explicit about eventually-periodic case ==
Line 82 ⟶ 85:
=== To do for [[Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria|B-class]] ===
=== Skipped ===
:{{Yellow tick}} "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." This one needs review from a subject-matter expert.
:{{Yellow tick}} "The article contains supporting materials where appropriate." I think a video illustrating the concept would be helpful, but the article ought to pass this criterion even without one.
=== Done ===
:{{tick}} Pass to improve inline citations
:: "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations." I think this is the weak point of the article, and indeed of many Wikipedia articles about mathematical concepts. Not only are there important uncited statements in the article (although many of them can be verified by readers with sufficient mathematical background), as far as I can tell, all sources cited in the article are [[wp:primary|primary]]. The one thing that would improve the article most, in my opinion, is more [[wp:secondary source|secondary source]]s.
::* Every citation should have an exact page if possible, a page range should only be used if the claim(s) cited cannot be verified by reading any single page (and even then it should be as short as possible). I haven't checked whether the article complies with this, I just wanted to mention that. I see that the ''Reachability Problems'' source is used several times, you can provide a separate page number for each of them by using {{tl|sfn}} or {{tl|r}} but given that the page range isn't long it may be more trouble that it's worth.
::* It would be ideal if there were a source for every definition and every example, to verify that they are notable and therefore relevant to the article. Of particular interest would be a source for the fact that every eventually periodic sequence is constant-recursive, given that it causes a minor headache in [[Constant-recursive sequence#Definition|Definition]]. That said, I don't think it's necessary.
:{{tick}} Pass to improve the writing and make more accessible.
:* The prose is generally good, but it feels too textbook-like to me. Aside from the lead, the article uses a distinctive writing style that is more characteristic of a math textbook than of an encyclopedia.
:* "The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way." I think the [[wp:write one level down|write one level down]] rule is the best way to assess this, but I don't know at which level this subject is typically studied. If [[graduate school]], I'd say it passes. If [[undergraduate education#United States system|undergraduate]], it fails.
:{{tick}} The use of the notation <math>s(n)</math> for an element of a sequence rather than the more common <math>s_n</math> can confuse readers, especially given that most (all?) articles linked from this one use the common notation. I propose changing <math>s(n)</math> to <math>s_n</math> and <math>F(n)</math> to <math>F_n</math>.
:{{tick}} The article has a defined structure.
Line 123 ⟶ 124:
:* From my personal experience, people without [[wikt:postsecondary|postsecondary]] mathematical background don't know that sequences are functions or that they can be written using function notation. Per [[WP:MTAU]], such readers are part of our target audience to the greatest possible extent.
: [[User:Eric Rowland|Eric Rowland]], does this address your objections? [[User:Streded|Streded]] ([[User talk:Streded|talk]]) 04:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
== To-do list for [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria]] (June 2022) ==
Trying to bring this to GA status eventually. [[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]] ([[User talk:Caleb Stanford|talk]]) 22:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
=== Primary to-dos ===
*Improve inline citations further
:*We need a few more good textbook references to draw from.
::*Concrete Tetrahedron is a solid reference, but covers only about half of the material in the article (mostly the more elementary stuff). Also, because it doesn't allow eventually-periodic we should avoid relying on it too heavily for citing results.
::*I took a look at Concrete Mathematics but it doesn't cover most of the material in the article (in fact we could probably remove it from Further Reading).
::{{done}}
:*Probably some combinatorics and generating functions textbooks will cover the relevant material, that's where I will look first.
::{{done}} (added ref to Stanley)
:*We need references for every line in the Closure Properties table.
::{{done}} (added refs to Stanley)
:*Finally, a few statements in the lead still need references.
::{{not done}} per [[MOS:LEADCITE]]
=== GA criteria list ===
{| class="wikitable"
|0||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|0}}
|-
|0a||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|0a}}
|-
|0b||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|0b}}
|-
|0c||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|0c}}
|-
|0d||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|0d}}
|-
|0e||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|0e}}
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|1||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}
|-
|1a||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}}
|-
|1b||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1b}}
|-
|2||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}
|-
|2a||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2a}}
|-
|2b||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2b}}
|-
|2c||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2c}}
|-
|2d||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2d}}
|-
|3||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}
|-
|3a||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3a}}
|-
|3b||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3b}}
|-
|4||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|4}}
|-
|5||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|5}}
|-
|6||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}
|-
|6a||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6a}}
|-
|6b||{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6b}}
|}
{{Talk:Constant-recursive sequence/GA1}}
== Degeneracy ==
{{ping|GaseousButter}} I corrected your edit as I think you meant "if k = 1" not "if n = 1", but let me know if I got the result wrong! [[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]] ([[User talk:Caleb Stanford|talk]]) 23:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you - I was transcribing directly from the book but then changed the letters to match with the article - that n slipped through the cracks it seems! [[User:GaseousButter|GaseousButter]] ([[User talk:GaseousButter|talk]]) 13:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
== Skolem problem ==
"For example, the Skolem problem is decidable for sequences of order up to 4"
It would do to be more precise here - what is currently published in the literature is that the Skolem problem is decidable for algebraic sequences of order up to 3, and '''real''' algebraic sequences up to order 4. In fact, it is true that it is decidable for all algebraic sequences up to order 4 - I have a paper in the works about that so watch this space ;). But as of now what is written is a little ambiguous and potentially misleading. [[User:GaseousButter|GaseousButter]] ([[User talk:GaseousButter|talk]]) 13:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks, I can fix this! From the source (Ouaknine and Worrell) I have: "Partial progress towards decidability of the Skolem Problem has been achieved by restricting the order of linear recurrence sequences. For sequences of order 1 and 2, decidability is relatively straightforward and considered to be folklore. Decidability for orders 3 and 4, however, had to wait until the 1980s before being independently settled positively by Mignotte, Shorey, and Tijdeman [13], as well as Vereshchagin"
:so I guess they are referring to real algebraic sequences? I can also check the original sources and add these. Or feel free to propose an edit. Thanks! [[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]] ([[User talk:Caleb Stanford|talk]]) 19:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, in that source you cited the way they define a linear recurrence sequence is to be over the reals. I think the best thing to do is to cite the original sources (they're not the nicest things to read through being from the 80s). I might edit it myself in a bit but I was originally being lazy because I didn't want to figure out what the cleanest wording would be haha [[User:GaseousButter|GaseousButter]] ([[User talk:GaseousButter|talk]]) 19:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
| |||