Template:Did you know nominations/Furstenberg–Sárközy theorem
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Furstenberg–Sárközy theorem
[edit]- ... that the first player in the game of subtract a square can win from most positions, as the Furstenberg–Sárközy theorem shows? (Source: See footnote 3 of the article.)
- ALT1 ... that the Furstenberg–Sárközy theorem shows that the first player in the game of subtract a square can win from most positions?
- Reviewed: Jin Chae-seon
Created by David Eppstein (talk). Self-nominated at 00:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC).
This article is long enough and new enough. The article is neutral and seems to be free of copyright problems. I have added ALT1 which I think is clearer. I am unable to find a sentence in the article with an inline citation which supports the hook fact, a DYK requirement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- As is typical for a hook that combines more than one piece of information, you need to look in more than one source, and at more than one sentence of the article. For the fact that the losing positions in subtract a square are the positions generated by the greedy algorithm, see Golomb or OEIS — I just added another footnote to the article repeating those sources, so that per DYK rules there will be a footnote on the actual sentence that says so. For the fact that the same sequence generated by the same greedy algorithm has more non-members than members, see Ruzsa, or Lyell & Rice, as was already footnoted and mentioned in the hook source comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, if you included the cited, as written, hook statement in the article, I could finish the review, but as it is, it's probably best if I leave it to another reviewer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: an explicit statement equivalent to the hook, with a source, was already in the article, in the sentence that said "the cold positions are less frequent than hot positions", but perhaps the WP:TECHNICAL language of this clause obfuscated the equivalence. I have added another sentence following it (with the same source) that states the hook more explicitly and in plainer terms: [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
As a non-mathematician, I should perhaps not have reviewed this at all, but on the other hand, mathematicians do not seem to be thick on the ground at DYK, so I tried to help. There are some hooks that would languish for ever if reviewers were required to be experts in the subject. The new sentence provides understandable support for the hook so this nomination is now good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
