Talk:Erdős–Moser equation

A fact from Erdős–Moser equation appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 August 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the only known solution to the Erdős–Moser equation is 1 + 2 = 3?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Erdős–Moser equation.

Wikipedia

Is this solution to the Erdos-Moser equation true? http://vixra.org/pdf/1805.0230v1.pdf 3p8 (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On circumstantial grounds alone (techniques employed, venue of publication), the answer is "of course not". Concretely, it's easy to identify the error: in the final paragraph on page 2, the author proposes to substitute x + 1 for x in equation (3.4), but equation (3.4) is valid only for those values of x that actually are solutions, not in general. --207.232.84.226 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 23:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that all solutions of the Erdős–Moser equation correspond to convergents of ln(2), yielding "one of very few instances where a large scale computation of a numerical constant has an application"?
ALT1: ... that the only known solution to the Erdős–Moser equation is 1 + 2 = 3?

Source: [1]

The support for the hook is in the article's abstract.

- Reviewed:

5x expanded by LucasBrown (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

LucasBrown 11:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Pinging David Eppstein if he could contribute to the nomination (either as a reviewer or to suggest hooks) as the current hook seems very specialist or complex and thus may not be easily understood by general readership. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that the article would be better with a bit more prose to contextualize what is going on here. Currently the article itself is very inaccessible to the average reader, it would be nice to have a background of why this equation is important (I see the term "Diophantine equation" being used, maybe you could include a few sentences on how this relates to the article) and some prose (as opposed to proofs) to convey the methods being used to solve it. Sohom (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to our DYK rules, "Hooks should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". I don't think that is the case for the proposed hook. Also, I think the hook is misleading: as far as we know, it could be the case that all solutions of the equation are the single solution 1+2=3, unrelated to the log(2) calculation. And calling this an "application" is dubious when it is just a mathematical calculation used to support another mathematical calculation. I have generally interpreted this rule as requiring that the hook connect the subject to some real-world topic beyond mathematics (just as we require that hooks about fiction connect the subject to some real-world topic beyond the plot). Unfortunately I see no non-mathematics at all in the article, on which to build a hook. It's kind of interesting to me that the known lower bound on a second solution is such a huge number, but I don't think I represent a general reader for this purpose. I do also agree that the walls of equations make the article hard to read (not just to the average reader), but that is not really a DYK criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, as a non-math guy, this hook is remarkably uninteresting. Though that is obviously my opinion, it shows that it is likely not a suitable one, or the article as a whole as a matter of a fact. TheBritinator (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about "... that the only known solution for the Erdős–Moser equation is "1 + 2 = 3" ? DS (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better. It still doesn't relate to non-mathematics at all, but at least it's (1) at a level understandable to the general reader, and (2) kind of intriguing how something so basic-looking as 1+2=3 could be the basis of something where we don't know if there is another solution. The question is whether it's enough better to pass the interestingness test. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that's better. I was going to suggest something like "... no one knows whether the Erdős–Moser equation has more than one solution". XOR'easter (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the 1+2=3 hook to the list. - LucasBrown 04:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 is brilliant! Schwede 66 04:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full review needed now that additional hooks have been suggested. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall:

ALT1 only approved. WP:DYKCITE is satisfied—per WP:CALC, mathematical formulae and calculations do not count as OR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]