Talk:Percolation threshold: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:19, 30 June 2013

Physics C‑class Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Typo in a table

In "Thresholds for 2D continuum models", the last column for "Disks of radius r", the first of the two numbers contains a typo. It currently says 1.466322(2), and should probably be 1.436322(2), consistent with the other number in the same column, and with the other columns. I am going to check this once more and fix it in a while, unless someone objects. Frepa314 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imprecise description of tabulated figures

This is a very interesting article. Unfortunately, some of the tabulated figures are not as clearly labeled as they ought to be. For instance, I suppose that some of the tables refer to p_c, which has been previously defined. But the article doesn't really say so. In other places the article refers to p₁, p₂, etc, without explicitly defining what these different probabilities represent (connectivity in x, y, and z directions? I have to guess).

Anyway, I'm going to work on some of the idiomatic and grammatical problems in the existing article. If anyone who contributed the numerical results can describe what they mean, more explicitly, I'd appreciate the input. Thanks! DavidCBryant 22:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very informative addition. I am very impressed at the lattices and the extensive tables. Very good work. 68.40.13.117 18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Cassandra O'Maybline[reply]

it seems that smth's wrong with the references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slakov (talk • contribs) 12:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete Reference

There's an incomplete reference without a note where that was published, neither google nor any of the article search engines I use can find it:

# ^ Ziff, R. M.; Gang Hu (2008). "Percolation on lattices of the kagome class".

Could you please add more information about that article? --Rubik's Cube (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor description or possibly incorrect

Discussing notation the article states: . '...The notation such as (4,8²) comes from Grünbaum and Shepard,[2] and indicates that around a given vertex, going in the clockwise direction, one encounters first a square and then two octagons. ...' . I believe this is either a poor description or otherwise is simply incorrect. Specifically the requirement to go in the 'clockwise direction' cannot be correct, especially when no initial alignment is specified, and no particular vertex is specified. . The images and associated notation are likely tp be at odds with the instruction to go in the 'clockwise direction' when looking at any given vertex in all but the most simple mosaics. 70.185.127.32 (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC) BGriffin[reply]