Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Ok, let's try to discuss here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RSA_(cryptosystem)#Safe_Primes,_in_RSA_Key_Generation No "reliable sources" are needed here. Here you just need to think with your own head. This is math. In any case, I do not owe you anything, and I do not demand anything from you.

Moved to Talk:Cartesian coordinate system

 – Nothing personal in this discussion

Hi D.Lazard! I have encountered a source on permutations equations for finding unknown permutations: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4465008/solving-equations-in-permutation-group . How do you think, can it be used in some articles for mentioning permutations equations (in permutations groups)? Thanks. 109.166.138.251 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stackexchange is rarely a WP:reliable source. Here, we have a single random example that can hardly be generalized. So, nothing encyclopedic. A strongly related problem is considered in Word problem for groups. You can se there that these questions are very difficult. D.Lazard (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you encountered stronger sources? In principle equation is a notion which can be associated to any operation, formally defined in an algebraic structure, the simplest examples occuring in the case of addition and multiplication of positive integers (a + x = b, ax = b), paralleled to the union of disjoint sets A U X = B. 109.166.138.251 (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In re to the binary operation equation, what is so controversial? The notion of equation can be applied to any operation, not just the arithmetic/algebraic ones, for finding an unknown operand. 109.166.136.27 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "[Binary operations] can be associated to the notion of equations". This is wong, as many equations involve several binary operations (for example, quadratic equations), and some equations do not involve any binary operation (for example, the differential equation ⁠⁠). The truth is that binary operations are ubiquitous in mathematics. Your second sentence is "Equation solving allows finding unknown operands in a binary operation defined in a structure". This does not fit the definition given in the linked article, where the phrase "binary operation" does not appear.

So, "unsourced and controvertial" is a gentle way to say that your edit is wrong and nonsensical. D.Lazard (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing controversial or nonsensical in an equation for, say, modular addition with an unknown operand. Similarly for modular multiplication modular multiplicative inverse allows finding the unknown operand, when it is possible, in case of existence of modular multiplicative inverse. 109.166.136.27 (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial" means that competent people can disagree. So, you cannot say that there is nothing controversial in your writings, when they are challenged. D.Lazard (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With what exactly do you disagree? You can't deny the presented examples regarding unknown operand(s) in modular addition and modular multiplication. Aren't those modular equalities containing unknown operands equations? 109.166.136.27 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the disagreement hinges on whether "associated to" means "exclusively associated to" or not. I also thought your edit was entirely uncontroversial understood in plain technical English, where "associated to" does not imply "exclusively associated to," but I'd recommend a more unambiguous explicit wording of that kind in order to avoid requiring D. Lazard to admit he was wrong or to examine his English skills, which would be unkind.

I do not think it was fair to call your edit wrong and nonsensical, made perfect sense to me, but these fights aren't worth getting bogged down in; see WP:BAIT. RowanElder (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]