Talk:Znám's problem

Importance?

I thought setting the importance of this topic to low was an idiotic call. If it's really of such low importance, how come there are so many scholarly papers on this topic? Why does the OEIS have two sequence relating to this topic, with one of them having the keyword "more"? This topic is a must-have for a math encyclopedia and an ought-to-have for a general encyclopedia. Anton Mravcek 17:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

GA thoughts

I find this very difficult to understand, but, whilst I'm reasonably good with maths and calculus, I'm not a mathemetician. If this is intended to be comprehensible by non-mathemetitians, though, I'm afraid it fails. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The first time I read about this problem it didn't entirely make sense to me either, but then again I wasn't comfortable with capital pi product notation back then. The example they gave (for k = 5, but not the same one given here) made it crystal clear for me. Perhaps you and I could think up a way to make the definition easier to understand so that the example merely reinforces what the reader has already understood. PrimeFan 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

I've put it on hold for a few days, because it's pretty good pass, but...

1. The graphical demonstration needs explaining in the article (maybe even a short section?), as it's the only way 99% of readers will understand what the hell we're talking about. By the way, on firefox2 the description page doesn't render the image (whereas this one works).
2. Aligning the "+1 = "in the examples section would be a good idea.
3. The formulae in the ref section are a bit big. Is there any way of scaling them down?
4. Very minor wording issues, i.e. "but it's not known how many total solutions there are left to be discovered for each k. However, it is known", maybe "but it is unclear how many...however, it is known" to avoid this?

These minor glitches aside, this article is, in my opinion, of at least GA quality. Bravo! yandman 10:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your suggestions! I think I've addressed each of them in my latest revision. The blank on the image page is I think a bug in WP's handling of SVG format; purging sometimes helps but doesn't always. The only fix I know of is to go back to bitmap images, which seems to be against policy for this style of graphics. —David Eppstein 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Perfick. Sorry for the rather long delay, I've not been very active recently. Congratulations on a job well done. yandman 13:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein 17:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In is not clear, where from equation arise

Section Connection to Egyptian fractions, first sentence...

... (via division by the product of the xi's) ...

How? What we devide?

Jumpow (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Additiinal note: In article Brenton & Vasiliu ("Znám's problem") use divisibility and short, but not obvious reasoning. May be we have to include this reasoning into WIKI article? Jumpow (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Mistake

I think the example of Janak is {2, 3, 11, 23, 31}, not {2, 3, 11, 23, 315} ; see the picture. Robert FERREOL (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, corrected. I don't know which picture you mean but the MR summary says 31 not 315. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The image is the one located at the top. It illustrates the fact that the solution {2, 3, 11, 23, 31} provides the relation 1 = 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/11 + 1/23 + 1/31 + 1/(2×3× 11×23×31). It should instead be located in the "Connection to Egyptian fractions" paragraph. Robert FERREOL (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It's at the top so the article has a lead image. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)