I have looked for but could not find a good overview of the different kinds of growth that could be described mathematically, so I tried to write one. The article has been reviewed and found to be lacking technical depth or adequate references. As I explained in the Talk section for the article, I was aiming the article at non-mathematicians, and more technical explanations can be found in the articles on the individual types that are linked. Can anyone give me guidance on finding and citing better references? Thanks Pbergerd ( talk) 16:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
John von Neumann has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
With the contributions of von Neumann to sets, the axiomatic system of the theory of sets avoided the contradictions of earlier systems and became usable as a foundation for mathematics, despite the lack of a proof of its consistency. The next question was whether it provided definitive answers to all mathematical questions that could be posed in it, or whether it might be improved by adding stronger axioms that could be used to prove a broader class of theorems.
I'm trying to find the meaning of point grup, a pyramidal symmetry of order 8, while in few days ago I have googled on it. My interpretation about this point group states that a solid with square base is symmetrical as one rotates for every quarter-turn of a full angle around the axis of symmetry, two vertical planes pass through diagonals of a square base, and two other vertical planes pass through the midpoints of the edges of square base. Is it correct?
I'm not actually expert at this subject. I would appreciate for the explanation or correction about my interpretation. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 06:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
There is an editorial dispute concerning possible Chinese origins for the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, please see talk:Hindu-Arabic numeral system. Paul August ☎ 21:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm old man enough and now try to do something useful. I'm interested in computational math and got some results on OEIS etc. So now I’m dealing with centroidal Voronoi tesselations, imho very interesting subject. The Wiki paper Centroidal_Voronoi_tessellation
- is a stub
- contains inaccuracies (stable and unstable CVT mixed)
- very outdated
So I'd like to edit it and got enough data for it, but
- feel self-doubt
- don't know is it useful
So will be very glad of any support and advice here!
UPD
Thank you very much for your support, but the question is more complicated than I thought. If ones has rights of OEIS editor please look at these drafts: https://oeis.org/draft/A363822 https://oeis.org/draft/A366544 but it's just tip of the iceberg ((
Dharmacat ( talk) 18:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I notice that the International Conference on Formal Power Series and Algebraic Combinatorics (FPSAC) has been proposed for deletion. This is a highly prestigious conference with extended abstracts, comparable in several ways to a journal; I think it is the main conference in algebraic combinatorics, broadly considered. Does WP:NJOURNALS apply? If it is not notable, does a similar argument for deletion apply to e.g. Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA)? (While the SODA article is better developed, the concern of primary sourcing still holds.) I think that there may be several similar conferences around theoretical computer science and nearby areas. Disclosing that I served on the scientific committee of FPSAC the year that it was in Slovenia. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 09:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Addition: or alternatively, do proceedings published in well-established journals satisfy GNG? Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 10:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I have looked for but could not find a good overview of the different kinds of growth that could be described mathematically, so I tried to write one. The article has been reviewed and found to be lacking technical depth or adequate references. As I explained in the Talk section for the article, I was aiming the article at non-mathematicians, and more technical explanations can be found in the articles on the individual types that are linked. Can anyone give me guidance on finding and citing better references? Thanks Pbergerd ( talk) 16:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
John von Neumann has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 07:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
With the contributions of von Neumann to sets, the axiomatic system of the theory of sets avoided the contradictions of earlier systems and became usable as a foundation for mathematics, despite the lack of a proof of its consistency. The next question was whether it provided definitive answers to all mathematical questions that could be posed in it, or whether it might be improved by adding stronger axioms that could be used to prove a broader class of theorems.
I'm trying to find the meaning of point grup, a pyramidal symmetry of order 8, while in few days ago I have googled on it. My interpretation about this point group states that a solid with square base is symmetrical as one rotates for every quarter-turn of a full angle around the axis of symmetry, two vertical planes pass through diagonals of a square base, and two other vertical planes pass through the midpoints of the edges of square base. Is it correct?
I'm not actually expert at this subject. I would appreciate for the explanation or correction about my interpretation. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 06:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
There is an editorial dispute concerning possible Chinese origins for the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, please see talk:Hindu-Arabic numeral system. Paul August ☎ 21:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm old man enough and now try to do something useful. I'm interested in computational math and got some results on OEIS etc. So now I’m dealing with centroidal Voronoi tesselations, imho very interesting subject. The Wiki paper Centroidal_Voronoi_tessellation
- is a stub
- contains inaccuracies (stable and unstable CVT mixed)
- very outdated
So I'd like to edit it and got enough data for it, but
- feel self-doubt
- don't know is it useful
So will be very glad of any support and advice here!
UPD
Thank you very much for your support, but the question is more complicated than I thought. If ones has rights of OEIS editor please look at these drafts: https://oeis.org/draft/A363822 https://oeis.org/draft/A366544 but it's just tip of the iceberg ((
Dharmacat ( talk) 18:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I notice that the International Conference on Formal Power Series and Algebraic Combinatorics (FPSAC) has been proposed for deletion. This is a highly prestigious conference with extended abstracts, comparable in several ways to a journal; I think it is the main conference in algebraic combinatorics, broadly considered. Does WP:NJOURNALS apply? If it is not notable, does a similar argument for deletion apply to e.g. Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA)? (While the SODA article is better developed, the concern of primary sourcing still holds.) I think that there may be several similar conferences around theoretical computer science and nearby areas. Disclosing that I served on the scientific committee of FPSAC the year that it was in Slovenia. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 09:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Addition: or alternatively, do proceedings published in well-established journals satisfy GNG? Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 10:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)