User talk:D.Lazard

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.

Coordinate Systems and Analytic Geometry

Moved to Talk:Cartesian coordinate system

 – Nothing personal in this discussion

Content dispute at Function (mathematics)

Hi D.Lazard! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Regarding Function_(mathematics) Thatwhichislearnt (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

About the Cubic equation article

You have twice reverted a valid correction I made to this article, for no justifiable reason. The notations v and v and $v$ produce different fonts for what is supposed to be the same symbol, and all three of these were being used previously, depending on where the symbol was appearing: in the text, in an inline expression, or in an offset equation.

And the same occurred for several other math symbols. This is confusing for the reader, and obscures what is being stated. I made the effort to carefully correct these in order to make the notation consistent. But for no justifiable reason, you have reverted these edits, twice, and also incorrectly stated that there was an identification made between the symbols "A" , "B" and "C", when there was not (at least, not by me in this correction).

It is not a matter of preferring one "style" over another, but of making the article more clearly readable by not using different fonts, in different locations, for the same symbol. Please undo your reversions, and be more careful about undoing valid revisions made by others, who are only trying to improve the article by correcting notational inconsistencies. You have twice reverted to previous, erroneous versions that need to be corrected all over again. KarlJacobi (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

To editor KarlJacobi: You changed 3 times the third line of the article into "in which {{a}} is nonzero. $a$:". This is certainly not a "valid correction".

You changed 3 times "Let $W=-{\frac {q}{2}}\pm {\sqrt {\frac {p^{3}}{27}}}+{\frac {q^{2}}{4}}$ be any nonzero root of this quadratic equation." into "Let $W:=w^{3}=-{\frac {q}{2}}\pm {\sqrt {{\frac {p^{3}}{27}}+{\frac {q^{2}}{4}}}}$ be any nonzero root of this quadratic equation." This is mathematically wrong for at least two reasons. Firstly, no mathematical text describes how a formula must be read when it contains simultaneously "=" and ":=". Secondly, $w^{3}$ is here a unknown quantity, and cannot therefore be a root of a quadratic equation.

About your systematic change from {{mvar|⋅}} to <math>⋅</math>: this is discouraged by MOS:VAR as explained in my edit summaries. This is also enforced by MOS:FORMULA that states Large-scale formatting changes to an article or group of articles are likely to be controversial. One should not change formatting boldly from LaTeX to HTML, nor from non-LaTeX to LaTeX without a clear improvement. Proposed changes should generally be discussed on the talk page of the article before implementation. One of the reason of this consensus among the members of the WikiProject Mathematics is that such a systematic change is error prone, and makes difficult for other editors to detect errors. Indeed, as quoted above, you did at least one error in this change; I am not willing to spent time for checking whether this is the only error. D.Lazard (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not edit the line " "in which Template:A is nonzero. :";

this seems to be a misperception on your part.

Regarding the edits that I did make:

You clearly have no interest in seeing the article's inconsistent use of various

fonts for the same symbols corrected, nor allowing any constructive edits by

other editors. You apparently wish to "guard" the editing of this article as though

it were your own private territory, and view contributions by other editors,

however well founded, as "alien incursions". There were no "blatant errors" in any

of the revisions I made; they were all valid corrections of inconsistencies in notation or

improvements of unclearly worded passages. I am not prepared to waste more time pursuing

this sort of trivial quarrel in the face of such absurd territoriality. Let the article

remain as you insist it remain - with all its errors, inconsistencies, imprecision

and poor English well guarded. KarlJacobi (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

KarlJacobi wrote: I did not edit the line " "in which Template:A is nonzero. :" Sorry, but the diff of your edit says exactly the opposite. D.Lazard (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If there was any change made in the line ""in which Template:A is nonzero. :", it was inadvertent, and may be safely reverted.

The notational problems I was trying to correct were primarily in the section "Derivation of the roots", where the letter "v" appears in three different fonts, though referring to the same symbol. There were numerous other instances of the same letters appearing with different fonts, depending on where they occurred in the text, inline equations or offset ones (e.g., the letters "u" and "w"). But "v" was the most conspicuous one, and can lead to confusion. KarlJacobi (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, the same edit changed the rendering of a section heading in the table of content into Computation of '''`UNIQ--postMath-000000C4-QINU`''' and '''`UNIQ--postMath-000000C5-QINU`'''. You are not responsible of bugs of the Wikipedia system, but you are responsible of verifying that your edits render as you hope, especially when the rendering errors result of your refusal to follow Wikipedia guidelines and you are reverted for this reason. D.Lazard (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Added property of Metallic Means without proper citation or permission

Mr. D.Lazard, I noticed that you have just added a property of Metallic Ratios on the METALLIC MEAN page : "The odd powers of metallic mean are themselves metallic mean"

You have added it without proper citation or author's permission. Hence either remove the property or use proper citation : PAPER (2021) : "Metallic Ratios : Beyond the Golden Ratio: The Mathematical Relationships between different Metallic Means" Link: https://rajpub.com/index.php/jam/article/view/9023 152.57.18.10 (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)