Talk:Sign sequence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:18, 18 February 2014

Mathematics Stub‑class Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

What does the subscript S on the C mean? Something is not clear here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielgauthier (talk • contribs) 20:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the definition of the Erdos Discrepancy Problem is borked. See the abstract http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2184 for a correct definition. Oh heck, I'll go fix it in a second. --75.145.68.89 (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, much cleaned up. The EDP section now reads like valid math, and properly describes and references the new proof. --75.145.68.89 (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 06:38, 18 February 2014 edit 75.145.68.89 (talk) Added confirmatory comment on EDP bug ← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:18, 18 February 2014 edit undo 75.145.68.89 (talk) Mentioned that I had fixed the EDP section. Next edit →
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Yeah, the definition of the Erdos Discrepancy Problem is borked. See the abstract http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2184 for a correct definition. Oh heck, I'll go fix it in a second. --[[Special:Contributions/75.145.68.89\|75.145.68.89]] ([[User talk:75.145.68.89\|talk]]) 06:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)		Yeah, the definition of the Erdos Discrepancy Problem is borked. See the abstract http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2184 for a correct definition. Oh heck, I'll go fix it in a second. --[[Special:Contributions/75.145.68.89\|75.145.68.89]] ([[User talk:75.145.68.89\|talk]]) 06:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

			OK, much cleaned up. The EDP section now reads like valid math, and properly describes and references the new proof. --[[Special:Contributions/75.145.68.89\|75.145.68.89]] ([[User talk:75.145.68.89\|talk]]) 07:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)