Talk:Permutation

message: In permutations with repetitions it has to be stated at least Tuple#n-tuples_of_m-sets as the word tuples alone is only the plural of tuple (ordered set or list) so ordered sets or lists and permutations without repetitions refers to a scalar number
It has to be clarified Tuples  at least as Tuple#n-tuples_of_m-sets as Tuples alone is only the plural of Tuple and Permutations without repetition is a scalar number. Orendona (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see from your edits that you want to refer to the cardinality of the set of permutations with (or without) repetition. Is this the scalar number you mention above? This would be a very tortured way to approach the topic and demonstrates some deep confusion. --Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Permutations with repetitions

message: Adding real notations in notation subtopic will help people new to this and it makes article more easy to read. Anish59312 (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add real notations in notation subtopic 

message: In the examples, slot numbers and values both use numbers, hiding the fact that the two are not the same.  I propose that slots be identified by numbers, while values are letters.    Comfr (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing address and value

message: The Cycle Notation section explains that many different cycle notations are possible for the same permutation because the starting point for each cycle can be any element in the cycle and then it goes on to give examples; however, the first example given, (125)(34)=(34)(125), is of two equivalent cycles whose order is commuted but whose starting points are unchanged. 
 
This is doubly confusing because the article clearly states that permutations do not in general commute but does not mention that an exception to this general rule is when the permutations are disjoint.
My suggestion is either to move the (125)(34)=(34)(125) example to its own separate paragraph which explains that disjoint permutations commute and hence give rise to multiple cycle notations for the same permutation or to reword the current paragraph in line with my edit at 19:07, 21 January 2022.
Obtuse Wombat (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that disjoint cycles commute is important in its own right, separate from the fact that many cycle notations are possible.  Its omission was a deficiency in the section, but it did not belong in the sentence where you stuck it.  I have done a thing, hopefully it is agreeable. --JBL (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Separately, "rational" is an adjective, the noun you wanted is "rationale". --JBL (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks JBL, your change is much better. And also thanks for the pointer to WP:BRD.  Incidentally, I did think I was following a standard process based on the second sentence of the "Discuss edits" paragraph of How to use article talk pages, which I was led to via a Google search on "how to dispute reverts on a Wikipedia article". Obtuse Wombat (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   My edit summary was a snarky reaction, before I had taken the time to think about the content of your post here.  I should have read and reflected for a moment first, before re-reverting and snapping.  Sorry about that. --JBL (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning that disjoint cycles commute in Cycle Notation section 

message: Which term should be used to describe the type of a permutation in this article: "cycle type" or "cycle structure"?  Both are common but Google gave 23,900 hits on my search for 'permutation "cycle type"' and 32,900 hits for 'permutation "cycle structure"', so on 6 August 2022 I edited the article to consistently use "cycle structure" (but mentioned that "cycle type" was also used).  This edit was reverted, so I posted this talk page section to discuss the issue.  Prior, to my earlier 30 July 2022 edit, this page confusingly used four terms to refer to the same thing ("cycle type" 3 times, "cycle structure" 1 time, "permutation type" 1 times, and "type" (by itself) 2 times).  Based on the Google stats, I think it would be best to use "cycle structure" and mention "cycle type" as an alternative term.   Even if we stick with the reversion to "cycle type", "cycle structure" should be mentioned as an alternative term. Obtuse Wombat (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for cleaning up the article; I agree that the prior state was confusing.   The search you describe does not answer the relevant question, because it doesn't indicate how the terms are being used.  Personally, I would use both phrases, but with slightly different meanings: I think it is common to use the words "cycle structure" when speaking loosely but I think it is rare to write a formal definition of "cycle structure".  So I would expect that most uses of "cycle structure" could be replaced with "cycle type" with no loss in meaning, but that the reverse is not necessarily true.  (Obviously I am relying heavily on vibes here.)  --JBL (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "cycle type" vs "cycle structure" 

message: People who have visual disabilities -- most notably color blindness -- can have problems with the Permutations example graphic.  Instead of having all circles/balls, why not have different shapes?  Colors could still be used for clarity, but there are some common pairs of colors to try to avoid, like red-green or green-blue.  Keeping a high contrast for those who have issues with contrast is also important. To help contrast, maybe highlight each shape with a white or black outline, etc. Or, just use black & white for the different symbols.
Any graphic should have proper ALT text explaining what is visually in the image, of course. ALT text would not explain the mathematical significance; that's left for the image caption. Wikispherion (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example image should consider various visual disabilities 

message: Is this meant to indicate that σ is a bijective function? Klauscougar (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. --JBL (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the tilde in the notation for the definition of permutation?