1, 2, 3 |
Safe Primes, in RSA
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.
Yo Ho Ho
Disambiguation link notification for August 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tensor product of fields, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subfield.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Goldbug Numbers
Curious why the Pillai conjecture info for Goldbach page was removed. The OEIS page is very well documented. Does wikipedia need additional info? Goldbugs are not the important topic here, the link between Pillai and Goldbach is, how could this fact possibly be sourced without mentioning Goldbugs? Also, Goldbug numbers have been discovered at least 3 independent times, not sure if that matters.
If you are saying that the claim that Pillai and Golbach are linked needs a direct source, its mentioned in the OEIS, but maybe it needs to be more clear in OEIS?
If you are saying that the claim needs to be from another academic paper, are you up for writing one with me? ;^) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgileScribe (talk • contribs) 14:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please, sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~).
- It is a basic policy of Wikipedia that every content must be reliably sourced, and that original research is forbidden. A mathematical content is considered as original research if it has not be published in a peer-referred journal, or it has not been discussed in reliable WP:secondary sources. OEIS may be a source for results of computations, but is not a reliable source for a mathematical content. Here, the first paragaph is sourced by OEIS, but the OEIS page contains references to the original Pillai's article, and to a regularly published secondary source. So, I have not removed the paragraph. On the other hand, the OEIS page to which was linked the second paragraph does not contain any other source than unpublished texts by Craig J. Beisel, the author of OEIS page. So no reliable sources and no secondary sources are available, and the paragraph is thus definitively not suitable for Wikipedia. D.Lazard (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Yes, this makes good sense. I thought OEIS qualified as peer-referred since it has editors. Sloane and team certainly don't just let anything through! It's unfortunate that this result will have to remain relatively unknown, I think it might be a thread leading to something interesting. I have attempted to add more clarity on this point to the OEIS site and I suppose in time if it is important it will eventually make its way to wikipedia. Unfortunately, I am not in academics so writing a paper on the result myself is not likely going to happen. Just trying to publicize the result in any way I can in case it gives someone like you with more experience some insight into the problem. If you have suggestions on where this original research should be published and how, I would be most interested in your advice. AgileScribe (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- It would also seem that the last bullet point in that section on twin primes suffers from the single OEIS author problem as well? The only source is a unpublished note by Dubner himself. If this is not the case, could you explain how the two entries are sourced differently? AgileScribe (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- This last bullet refers to OEIS only for computation results, which is fine. The same bullet refers also to a Dubner's paper. I do not know whether this paper has been published. In any case, it explains well the origin of these conjectures, and how they are natural generalizations og Goldberg conjecture. So removing this item would need a specific discussion. D.Lazard (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- It would also seem that the last bullet point in that section on twin primes suffers from the single OEIS author problem as well? The only source is a unpublished note by Dubner himself. If this is not the case, could you explain how the two entries are sourced differently? AgileScribe (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Lazard,
Thank you so much for getting back to me regarding editing policies of Wikipedia and our work on the quintic. I understand now what needs to be done, which is very helpful as we are primarily Finance practitioners. The motivation of our work was to provide an accurate closed form formula in radicals to the quintic, that works globally. Unlike traditional numerical methods such as Newton, which are primarily local, our method is specific to the quintic and uses distinct mathematical properties that always lead to an accurate approximation from the first iteration (|formula- root | < 4.32× 10−3 and |formula/root -1| < 2.51×10−2). In other words, everybody knows that the quintic cannot be solved in radicals. However, the intriguing finding here is the existence of a common-sense accurate closed formula.
Our only goal is to share this finding for the pure love of mathematics. Would you please be kind to suggest math journals that you deem a good potential fit? We will of course take into account your valuable feedback.
Thank you so much for all your help and I very much appreciate all your contributions to Wikipedia!
Kind Regards,Abdelmissa (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)