lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:3-opt

message: I think there are missing cases. Could it be? Please check the following:
http://tsp-basics.blogspot.com/2017/03/3-opt-move.html GabyEmily (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing cases? 

message: This article did not have a correct explanation of what a 3-Opt exchange is, and the implementation was also not correct.
Justification: A 3-Opt exchange swaps three existing edges for three new edges. One way to implement this exchange is to execute a sequence of either two or three 2-Opt exchanges. If a given implementation uses a simple array/list data structure to represent the tour, a single 2-Opt exchange may be characterized as a reversal of a segment in the tour. However, is impossible for a single segment reversal to "delete 3 connections" as claimed in the article/example code (one reversal is equivalent to a single 2-Opt exchange, not a 3-Opt exchange).
Additionally I think the article needs to explain 3-Opt more carefully before diving into a naive implementation. For the pseudocode, try a more efficient graph algorithm: for each node, explore a search tree of 6-edge alternating trails starting from that node (with additional rules to prune the search), and then compute the improved tour as the symmetric difference of the trail and the tour.
User:Nwiggin2 (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs rewrite
Talk:The Greek Tycoon

message: And were shocked (Shocked!) that anyone would think such a thing.  I'll see if I can find some references.  I know there's a lot about it in "The Golden Turkey Awards". - Richfife (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The producers denied that this film had anything to do with the Kennedys 
Talk:A-group

message: Why do we have this article and Group (mathematics)? I think this article should be deleted. Wilmot1 15:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case it should be re-named 'Abelian Group' it's current name is misleading - now I understand what it is about I will be able to contribute, I specialised in Abstract Algebra in my Mathematics BSc. I had never seen the abbreviation 'A' used for abelian. Wilmot1 13:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: But also why have we got Abelian group as a separate page? Wilmot1 14:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Since the 'A' stands for 'Abelian' I am proposing that this page be merged with Abelian group Wilmot1 14:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expanding on JackSchmidt's comment a bit, the "A" in "A group" is an abbreviation for "abelian".  This does not mean that "A group" is an abbreviation for "abelian group".  As stated in the article, a group is an A group if its Sylow subgroups are abelian.  The smallest nonabelian example is Sym(3), the symmetric group on three points.  The order of this group is squarefree (6 = 2•3), so its Sylow subgroups are abelian, implying that Sym(3) is an A group.  I oppose this merge. Michael Slone (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In case anyone does feel led to change this article to "A-group", be aware that there is already A-group, which is a redirect to the archaeological article A-Group, so a dab page would probably be useful. Michael Slone (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I don't think that A-group should redirect to A-Group. The current redirect is only there as a result of that article having been given the wrong capitalization to start with. So I think we should have the mathematical article at A-group and the archeological article at A-Group, with the usual "for the ... meaning, see ..." type of line at the beginning of each. --Zundark 10:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: Section 9 of Hall's 1940 "The construction of soluble groups" appears to be a gold-mine of information on soluble A-groups, but it has no proofs and is very, very brief.  Is anyone interested in (a) checking whether the statements are correct, (b) checking whether they remain true for insoluble A-groups, (c) finding citations for the material?  A summary of the work in the soluble area is available in Huppert's Endliche Gruppen.  I haven't checked Doerk-Hawkes yet. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact checking, citation finding
Talk:Agda (programming language)

message: I would love to see the constructor z<=n clarified with an example of its use: hard to understand the meaning if you don't already know the syntax details of Agda: is "z" a parameter of the constructor? Is "n" a parameter? Is "n" the only parameter? Is "z" a symbolic constant?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebcabin (talk • contribs) 14:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think a worthwhile addition would be a paragraph on Agda's cubical features, as one of the few preexisting mature languages that got CTT retrofitted. 58.96.219.177 (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cubical type theory support
Talk:Apotome (mathematics)

message: The definition and the example (an irrational number) seem to contradict each other. Abtract (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the example and added a referenced definition. Abtract (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This cannot be right 

message: I'm guessing this means an apotome is a number of the form
:  a-b \, 
where for some positive integer n,
: \left(\frac a b \right)^n
is rational.  Is that right?  Whether it is or not, it should be explained in language that people not accustomed to reading translations of Euclid will understand. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: From the Knorr reference I added, it seems to be more specifically n=2 rather than just any positive integer. Also, Euclid would have defined it in terms of commensurability of two line segments rather than by somehow breaking the symmetry by choosing one of them to have rational length. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  modern terms
Talk:Asymptotic theory

message: Under Asymptotic distribution, this passage occurs:
"In mathematics and statistics, an asymptotic distribution is a hypothetical distribution that is in a sense the "limiting" distribution of a sequence of distributions. A distribution is an ordered set of random variables
:Zi
for i = 1 to n for some positive integer n. An asymptotic distribution allows i to range without bound, that is, n is infinite."
This is really inappropriate for several reasons:
1) Is a distribution the same thing as an ordered set of random variables?  I don't think so.
2) What is an "asymptotic distribution" ?  Is it a limiting distribution, or something with the power to allow i to range without bound ?  It can't be both.
3) What kind of definition is "An asymptotic distribution allows i to range without bound" ???  Evidently this refers to a modification of the definition given for a distribution. But, whatever that is supposed to mean, it is certainly not a definition of anything.
4) If ranging without bound is the same thing as n being infinite — as the last sentence says — then i can take the value infinity.  I don't think so. 
Can someone who understands both what an asymptotic distribution is, and how to explain it clearly, please edit this passage appropriately?  Thanks.Daqu (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory and confusing passage 
Talk:Ado's theorem

message: A concluding paragraph says 
:The restriction on the characteristic was removed later, by Iwasawa and Harish-Chandra.
Does that mean that the
:over a field K of characteristic zero
statement of the theorem in the first paragraph is not necessary?
In that case the statement should be made in its most general case, and the sequence of proofs of progressively less restrictive cases should be in an historical note.
Or does it refer to some other restriction on field characteristic, one never mentioned in this article?
Either way, a small cleanup would be helpful.  Sadly, I do not have the knowledge to do so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.140.233 (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Restriction on the characteristic"?
Talk:Friedlander–Iwaniec theorem

message: I am glad that the title of the article has been corrected. The article still seems to make a false claims about
* the method used by F-Iw;
* about the sieve theory in general.
I forgot the name of the mathematician, who went back to the original Brun's sieve. I think that F-Iw used his improved Brun's sieve, and developed it further.
I am aware of sieves created or started by Eratosthenes, Brun, Linnik, Selberg, ... but not of any initiated by Bombieri. From what I remember, Bombieri was one of the early pioneers, who continued the work by Linnik and Selberg.
I'll leave the necessary changes to the article to a specialist. -- Wlod (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sieves 

message: I think that the article should mention why this is important and not just a curios.  To wit: the sequence is 'thin' (of natural density 0), and previous results showing the infinitude of primes in sequences have generally been 'thick', and the sieve used in the proof is parity-sensitive (where sieve theory usually has trouble distinguishing numbers with an even and an odd number of prime factors).
Is anyone up to the task?
CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance
Talk:Boolean circuit

message: For my English class I have to choose a Wikipedia project to edit that is a stub or start and make large contributions and edits. I am currently an Applied physics Undergrad and have studied Boolean circuits and used them in numerous experiments. I plan on adding examples of all the main Boolean circuits with examples. Feedback is strongly encouraged. Any suggestions you might have feel free to let me know. This is my first time editing on Wikipedia. Usher14(talk) 11:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large Additions/Significant Editing
Talk:Cactus graph

message: I see the claim about the forbidden minors of cactuses was tagged and then untagged as needing a cite today, and I agree that it probably does, but I'm having a hard time tracking it down. It's easy to prove using open ear decomposition of biconnected graphs: each biconnected graph can be formed by starting from a cycle and then repeatedly add paths that start and end at different previously added vertices (I can source this but it would take a little time to track down), the cycle and the first path form a theta (obvious), and contracting any theta produces a diamond (also obvious). But that's too much a synthesis to be adequate as a source here. I did find a closely related statement in Brandstädt, Le, and Spinrad, Graph Classes: A Survey, bottom of p.169: "Cactus graphs are outerplanar since they cannot contain K4 or K2,3 as a minor." But BLS don't state the actual forbidden minor characterization. Will keep looking. —David Eppstein 21:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found one! Will add to the article. —David Eppstein 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Forbidden minor

message: It seems that cactuses are useful to represent the minimum cuts of a graph: http://people.csail.mit.edu/debmalya/papers/soda09-cactus.pdf, http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1999.1039 The second paper says "In 1976, Dinits, Karzanov, and Lomonosov published a description of a very simple data structure called a cactus that represents all minimum cuts of a weighted, undirected graph in linear space." Is it worth mentioning ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.192.50.83 (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, probably in the "algorithms and applications" section. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Minimum cuts

message: I have moved the following comment by 76.199.11.9 from the article to the talk page, as referring in the article to the article's history is not adequate:
:(Note: an earlier version of this page used the term "cactus graph" instead of "cactus".  Just as graph theory studies "trees" rather than "tree graphs", also it is correct to say "cactus" and "cacti" rather than "cactus graph" and "cactus graphs".)
Feel free to include discussion about terminology in the article again if appropriate. Hermel (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on terminology
Talk:Ascendant subgroup

message: it's probably connected with (sub)normal series, check also stability group please...
did anyone who wrote this article seriously read "Martyn R. Dixon (1994). Sylow Theory, Formations, and Fitting Classes in Locally Finite Groups" ?
if not , just delete it from the article, as it makes no sense to put stuff that you haven't read or used  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.49.57 (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Sabetha, Kansas

message: I am looking for a family history of Grandmother. I have traced her back to settling here and living in the sod house. Is it possible to get more information. Thank you, Ede Dozier 2600:6C67:8A3F:F514:19CB:D1F3:9CAD:973E (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Florence Hower Ort
Talk:Augmented matrix

message: I've updated the definition of "Augmented Matrix" to replace the wishy-washy language about "changing the matrix in some way".  Augmented matrices are only shown as appending of rows in any reference I can find, and they are augmented for the purpose of performing elementary row operations in parallel.  Augmenting by concatenating rows of matrices to facilitate performing elementary column operations could be useful, in principle, but nobody seems to do that.  Rather, the term "block matrix" is sometimes used, and at least one reference (http://nptel.iitm.ac.in/courses/Webcourse-contents/IIT-KANPUR/mathematics-2/node15.html) defines "augmented matrix" as a special case of a block matrix.  Which it is. --Husoski (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-minor edits
Talk:Noel Perrin

message: March 16, 2007: Some work was done on the article in terms of formatting.
----
Some more references are needed for this article. Some material is unreferenced, and I could not find it with Google search. ReadQ 21:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What material did you have in mind? —wwoods 06:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What I mean is that no references are listed throughout the text and therefore, it appears to be unreferenced.
That is especially important after important biographical statements. ReadQ 14:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Baer ring

message: I have not really seen much evidence that any of these definitions are used in rings without unity.  I'm not an operator theorist though, so it could be less rare than I think.  If it really is uncommon, then it would seem better to avoid all the "if it has unity... if it has unity..." business.  Frankly speaking, I feel like rings without unity are the exception, not the other way around.  In any case I would be interested in suggested sources for Baer and Rickart rings without unity, and hearing the opinion from the rings without unity camp.  Thanks, Rschwieb (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  It might be better to assume unity
Talk:Seneca, Kansas

message: Please review the following to get a better idea of what you should add to this article:
# Please follow the Wikipedia USCITY guideline for layout and content.
# Please examine these great articles for ideas: Lock Haven, Pennsylvania / Stephens City, Virginia / Kent, Ohio / Tulsa, Oklahoma / Grand Forks, North Dakota.
# Please ensure a person meets Wikipedia Notability requirements before adding to the "Notable People" section.
Please review the following before editing:
# Please document your source by citing a reference to prove your text is verifiable.
# Please add text that has a neutral point of view instead of sounding like an advertisement.
# Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, .
Sbmeirow (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Notes Before Editing This Article 
Talk:Causal loop diagram

message: I visited this page to both learn about casual loop diagrams, and an interest in creating them, as surely many others do. The former is addressed, but what about the latter?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.129.161 (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software for causal loop diagrams 

message: Looks plagiarised from here:   125.236.197.192 02:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Looks plagiarised

message: I'm confused by this:
>> Negative causal links are links in which the nodes change in opposite directions (an increase causes a decrease in another node, or a decrease causes an increase in another node).
In combo with this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adoption_CLD.gif
Isn't the negative aspect of it really a derivative of some sort? (As the adoption rate goes up, the store of potential adopters goes down.  But as the adoption rate goes down... the store of potential adopters can't *decrease* -- it's just the derivative that decreases.  You don't add people back into the potential adopter pile as the rate of new adoptions goes down.) Elatb (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm confused

message: The illustration of the bank account is totally wrong. It depicts a reinforcing loop and shows a graph that first increases and then decreases. But a reinforcing loop means that you have a system that is either growing at an accelarating rate or decreasing at an accelerating rate. One example of such a system is dx/dt=x (Saittam (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank for your contribution, I wanted to show in this illustration both a growing and a decreasing system, I admit that the explanations were inadequate. I've updated illustration.Patrhoue 09:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing animation of bank account 

message: Since causal loop diagrams have no parameters and cannot simulate, I believe the use of the animations in this article are inappropriate and confusing and should be eliminated.Rgdudley (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animations not appropriate for CLDs
Talk:Bézout domain

message: I made some changes to this page -- mostly additions -- and mostly taken out of Kaplansky's book on Commutative rings.  I removed the stub description, because I do not know of anything specific that the article is lacking.  
Probably others will want to do some minor reformatting and other cosmetic changes. Plclark (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions
Talk:Brauer–Nesbitt theorem

message: Please do someone add the informations "Let $G$ be a group and $E$ be some field. If $\rho_1:G\to GL_n(E)$ and $\rho_2:G\to GL_n(E)$ are two finite-dimensional semisimple representations such that the characteristic polynomials of $\rho_1(g)$ and $\rho_2(g)$ coincide for all $g\in G$, then $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ are isomorphic representations. If $char(E)=0$ or $char(E)>n$, then the condition on the characteristic polynomials can be changed to the condition that the traces of $\rho_1(g)$ and $\rho_2(g)$ coincide for all $g\in G$. As a consequence, let $\rho:Gal(\overline{K}/K)\to GL_n(\overline{Q}_l)$ be a semisimple (continuous) $l$-adic representations of the absolute Galois group of some field $K$, unramified outside some finite set of primes $S$. Then the representation is uniquely determined by the values of the traces of $\rho(Frob_p)$ for $p\notin S$ (also using the Chebotarev density theorem)." into the Wikipedia article with proper English. It is very important.--77.1.129.34 (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority

message: This list is long, and the current one is readily available on the agency website, so I'm deleting individual names. Robert92107 (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Board Member list
Talk:Community structure

message: I am a student who has spent some time with community structure research lately and would like to take this opportunity to say a few words in the spirit of making this article considerably more valuable to the community of Wikipedia browsers and persons wanting to know more on this subfield of complex networks.
Though I did not initiate this article, I noticed its existence a while back, and feel it's time we talk about getting it to a much better state of existence.  I appreciate whoever took the time to add the page as it is a valuable area of research that has grown in recent years.  That said, I will soon begin a draft of a considerably revised page and post its meat in this section.  I thought I'd post this initial discussion-starter for anyone who has placed this page on their watch list and would be interested in posting some thoughts as to how to proceed.  Looking forward to it,
Geetduggal 03:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards a more quality article 

message: This article is very out of date now (July 2011). There is insufficient mention of overlapping community detection, and too much attention is given to  one particular method (modularity maximization) which is known to be somewhat problematic among the research community. I think I'd prefer a page that didn't try to enumerate all the methods, but which focussed on a general introduction to the field. Also, the claims about the prevalence of scale-free networks do not stand up, and are not relevant to this article. Any thoughts?
Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  10:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a lot of work
Talk:Cartan subgroup

message: The current article is mainly about a Cartan subgroup of a Lie group and so it makes sense to discuss in conjunction with Cartan subalgebra. We can still discuss the algebraic-case over there too. —- Taku (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If I look at (B, N) pair I see it's about groups of Lie type which are finite groups not Lie groups. And they have need for a Cartan subgroup distinct from the Cartan algebra. On the other hand, this stub seems to be talking about Lie groups ... so perhaps maybe merge most of the content here, but leave a stub behind so that the finite-group people can do what they need with it? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No objection from me if some of the subgroup material is moved; you might be in a better position what would be left behind. Klbrain (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I have moved Cartan subgroups of a Lie group to the Cartan subalgebra article but have left the rest here. -- Taku (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Cartan subalgebra]]
Talk:Cauchy's theorem (group theory)

message: "Cauchy's theorem is generalised by Sylow's first theorem, which implies that if pn is any prime power dividing the order of G, then G has a subgroup of order pn."
This is not correct - Sylow's first theorem states that there's a subgroup of order pn only for the highest power of p dividing the order of G, not for any power of p as stated. I don't know how to edit here (and don't want to ruin it more), just wanted to point this out at least.
79.176.35.201 (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph 

message: I don't understand this: "It is easily checked that for every element a in H there exists b in H such that bp = a," Why should this be true? 82.208.57.182 (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point in the proof, H is a finite abelian group of order relatively prime to p, so there are integers u,v such that 1 = |H|u + pv.  By Lagrange, a^(|H|u) is the identity, so a=a^1=a^(pv), so let b=a^v. JackSchmidt (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear Proof 

message: The two "Examples" sections read like exercises from a problem sheet. I don't see what they add to the article. They are currently marked for improvement with citations, but I would prefer to *replace* them with citations, if they remain in the article at all. Danielittlewood (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a textbook