Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:58, 6 September 2019

Computer science B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet Cleanup : Computer science articles needing attention Computer science articles needing expert attention Copyedit : Computing Expand : Computer science Infobox : Computer science articles without infoboxes Maintain : Timeline of computing 2020–present Photo : Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists) Computing articles needing images Stubs : Computer science stubs Unreferenced : WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs Project-related : Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Mathematics B‑class Mid‑priority

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Misplaced Pages. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Computer implementations

Needs more references -- I've tagged with refimprove. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fractional Part Cleanup

The current state of the article is a Frankenstein's Monster reflecting both a time when the fractional part function was defined in the introduction, and now, when it has been moved to the Applications section. For example, the sentence in which the fractional part function is first defined begins "As stated above, ..." I propose putting all the fractional part material in the Applications section, including the fractional part properties. Thoughts? DRE (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Truncation merge

It was proposed, about 29 months ago, that Truncation be merged into this article. I think it's a good idea, but no discussion was actually opened. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Weak disagree. They are slightly different concepts. But more problematic is the if the article should then be renamed to fit in all the concepts. With a third topic, would the article need to be renamed from Floor and ceiling functions to Floor, ceiling and truncation functions? +mt 22:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. Basically the entire truncation article could be folded into the truncation subsection of this article with minimal effort; the title of this article would not need to change. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Spreadsheets

Misplaced Pages is not a manual for Excel or other package. I propose to delete that section of the article. McKay (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Inverse

What is the inverse function of these functions, if it even exists? Either way, this info should be added to the article. --93.141.51.184 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Since all of these functions are piecewise constant, none of them has an inverse function. Just look at the graph! --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Naked assertion

"None of the formulas in this section is of any practical use."

Very entertaining statement, one that to some would make the section even more worthwhile. Too bad it is impossible to prove. Pressed to correct it, one might substitute the weaker but less objectionable, "Perhaps one day some formula in this section will become something other than a useless curiosity." 129.176.151.28 (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)129.176.151.28 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely true that none of the formulas is of any practical use. That statement is not contradicted by the assertion that some day someone may find a use for one of them, because it does not say "..and never will be of any practical use". However, it is very difficult to imagine any way that any such formula ever could be of any use. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We have given this rather more discussion than it deserves but I stand by my assertion and suggest that you have a tough row to hoe in trying to contradict it. I would suggest that you adopt my position: keep the disputed statement; it's entertaining, quite likely correct, and in any event a harmless comment about something that is tangential to the thrust of the article.129.176.151.28 (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I referenced the claim from a reliable source (Ribenboim) I think Crandall and Pomerance say pretty much the same thing - Virginia-American (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Unlabelled Axes

Graphs with unlabelled axes are meaningless, so could someone please fix the three meaningless graphs in this article. Readers should not have to guess what the graphs are supposed to mean as they may guess wrongly!86.140.5.138 (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of equivalence

In the section Floor and ceiling functions#Mod operator, could somebody please explain in what mathematical sense the equivalence below is true?

If x is an integer and y is a positive integer,

${\displaystyle (x\,{\bmod {\,}}y)\equiv x{\pmod {y}}.}$

As far as I can tell, there is no equivalence defined in this article. We are therefore left to guess at which equivalence is meant; this is not a recipe for accuracy. If one should suggest that it is an equivalence of integers modulo y, that would seem to be circular; or if we are to understand it in terms of the mod operator defined here, surely it becomes trivial? Yoyo (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes equivalence mod y, not circular, yes trivial (though not, perhaps, for the reason you wrote). Doubtful that it belongs in this article (about the floor function), right? --JBL (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I just decided to get rid of it. --JBL (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the formular for rounding away from zero correct?

Hi there, the formula for the rounding away from zero function ri(x) in this article's section Floor and ceiling functions#Rounding is claimed to be

${\displaystyle {\text{ri}}(x)=\operatorname {sgn}(x)\left\lfloor |x|+{\tfrac {1}{2}}\right\rfloor }$,

while in article Rounding#Rounding to integer the respective general formula is

${\displaystyle q=\operatorname {sgn}(y)\left\lceil \left|y\right|\right\rceil =-\operatorname {sgn}(y)\left\lfloor -\left|y\right|\right\rfloor \,}$

and the particular formula for rounding half away from zero:

${\displaystyle q=\operatorname {sgn}(y)\left\lfloor \left|y\right|+0.5\right\rfloor =-\operatorname {sgn}(y)\left\lceil -\left|y\right|-0.5\right\rceil \,}$.

So it might be useful to explain more precisely to which of both cases this article's rounding away from zero function applies. Apparently to the latter, and in this case its name shouldn't be just ri(x), but maybe rhi(x)? --Qniemiec (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

In the other article, it describes "rounding away from 0", then later describes "rounding to the nearest integer, with tiebreaking rules" (where one possible tiebreaking rule is "round away from 0"). In this article, it describes "round to the nearest integer, with tiebreaking rules" (and ditto). I do not think inventing new notations is a good solution in this situation, but perhaps there are other ways to make it clearer? --JBL (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of floor(x+y) and ceil(x+y)

Hello, I would like to propose an edit that would include following formulas

${\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\lfloor x+y\rfloor &=\lfloor x\rfloor +\lfloor y\rfloor +\lfloor \{x\}+\{y\}\rfloor ,\\\lceil x+y\rceil &=\lfloor x\rfloor +\lfloor y\rfloor +\lceil \{x\}+\{y\}\rceil \end{aligned}}}$

to section 'Equivalences'. Although there are two similar inaqualities already present in the section I believe 'my' equations to be more precise. One of them can be found in Graham, Knuth, Patashnik on p. 70, right above chapter 3.2 FLOOR / CEILING APP., with the other derived likewise.

References

1. Graham, R.; Knuth, D.; Patashnik, O. (1990). Concrete Mathematics (6. ed.). Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. p. 70.

--Martin Menkyna (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem, afaiac go ahead. Don't forget to include the ISBN of the book. - DVdm (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Please better representation

See better ceil(x) at https://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/content/1939/image84.png as better "filled color" (red in this case). The line is also filled, like a bolded line. The addiction of the "empty point" representation of the line function needs to be bold.

Bad source for prime test

This was a good edit by user Roger Hui (talk · contribs). Thanks! However, the cited source says something quite different. Our article now says:

${\displaystyle \sum _{m=1}^{\lfloor {\sqrt {n}}\rfloor }\left(\left\lfloor {\frac {n}{m}}\right\rfloor -\left\lfloor {\frac {n-1}{m}}\right\rfloor \right)=1,}$

which seems correct. But the cited source (first edition, 2001) on page 46 says:

${\displaystyle \sum _{m=1}^{\infty }\left(\left\lfloor {\frac {n}{m}}\right\rfloor -\left\lfloor {\frac {n-1}{m}}\right\rfloor \right)=2,}$

which also seems correct. The 2nd edition, 2006, on page 50 of the book says the same. Do we have a source that backs the article's version? It does look far superior—and, looking at the summation limit, more "useful", so I suggest we either find a source, or, keeping the content, we remove the current source. Or of course, add the source's version to the article. - DVdm (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless a source is found for the exact formula in the article, I suggest we keep the reference to Crandall and Pomerance, possibly modified to say that the article formula is based on it. Roger Hui (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but that would be sort of wp:OR, even if it's trivial, and surely wp:CALC does not apply here. Unless of course we all agree here and just wp:IAR . - DVdm (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

A bit of history: the form this took originally in the article was the Crandall--Pomerance form. In this edit from February 2015, Thedoctor73 changed the upper bound from infinity to n. The (erroneous) version was introduced in this edit by an IP user in August 2015, and has been there for the last three years. I personally would advocate for either the Crandall--Pomerance version or the simpler Thedoctor73 version (on the grounds that that simplification really is straightforward). It is definitely not good to have a false citation for the current (corrected) form. While the current form is in some sense more efficient than the C--P form, neither one is usable in practice so who cares? --JBL (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Aside from wp:OR (really? that is research?), the CP version has the advantage that (a) it works for all n whereas the current formula requires saying that n>1; and (b) it corresponds more closely to the fact that a prime is a number which is divisible by exactly two different divisors (${\displaystyle \left\lfloor {\frac {n}{m}}\right\rfloor -\left\lfloor {\frac {n-1}{m}}\right\rfloor }$ can be read as "m divides n"). The current formula has the advantage that (a) it has another use of floor, a not insignificant advantage in an article on floor and ceiling; (b) it makes the point that you only need to use trial divisors ≤ sqrt(n) and is useful in practice. Roger Hui (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, certainly it's OR. (The fact that it was wrong and undetected for 3 years is a good reason things should be supported by valid citations!) Roger Hui's list of reasons seems pretty clearly lopsided to me, and I have changed it back to the version of February 2015. --JBL (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

But but but ... in the CP reference it used ∞ as the upper limit on the sum, and here it says n. If you are going to change that upper limit (“original research”), why not change it to ${\displaystyle \lfloor {\sqrt {n}}\rfloor }$. I am also thinking that perhaps the article should say explicitly that the summand is more understandable when interpreted as “m divides n”. -- Roger Hui (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Smiling along, and agreeing that we change the upper limit to infinity, as in the source. I also moved the ref to the sentence preceeding the formula (as is usually done), and added the other condition to a footnote. If we have wp:consensus here that this is correct, there should be no problem. - DVdm (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I like how it's now done, by stating the alternative in the note/reference. I added the additional requirement that n be greater than 1 in the note/reference. -- Roger Hui (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. --JBL (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

prime test

${\displaystyle \sum _{m=1}^{\infty }\left(\left\lfloor {\frac {n}{m}}\right\rfloor -\left\lfloor {\frac {n-1}{m}}\right\rfloor \right)=2.}$

I've added:

Equivalently, ${\displaystyle \sum _{m=2}^{n-1}\left(\left\lfloor {\frac {n}{m}}\right\rfloor -\left\lfloor {\frac {n-1}{m}}\right\rfloor \right)=0.}$ This is correct because: ${\displaystyle \left\lfloor {\frac {n}{m}}\right\rfloor -\left\lfloor {\frac {n-1}{m}}\right\rfloor }$ is equal to 1 if m divides n, and to 0 otherwise, as can be seen immediately. q.e.d.

maimonid (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

See wp:UNSOURCED and wp:NOR. See also wp:CALC and wp:CONSENSUS. - DVdm (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

DVdm. Do you systematically paralyze any attempt to improve Misplaced Pages articles with wp:Unsourced ? It is a very bad practice to do so. You are missing the point of Misplaced Pages. Sources are demanded only when you have a real reason to disagree with a contributor, not because the contributor has not cited his sources. In the case of this article for example, there are full of non cited assertions (e.g. near the beginning of the article). The usual and good way to proceed is to clarify things in the discussion page, or to put a "citation needed" in the article.

maimonid (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

And, of course, wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I've not restored the assertion you've deleted. So this has nothing to do with that. I think you answer like a robot (or more precisely, you don't answer, like a robot), so, you are probably a robot, an I have to stop this discussion.

maimonid (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Maimonid: I agree that DVdm's responses are not very constructive. Here is a more helpful response: there is a discussion in the section directly above this one of the reasons for writing the article in its present form. Before making changes, it would be good to engage with the discussion there -- there are very good reasons not to make the change you suggest, relating to core principles of Misplaced Pages, as well as to reasonable choices about writing and presentation. Also, the form you've written down does not have clear meaning when n = 1, which is problematic. --JBL (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Joel B. Lewis:. Thank you for answering me. Indeed, this was discussed just above, and in fact the formula with ${\displaystyle \lfloor {\sqrt {n}}\rfloor }$ reported in the footnotes is exactly the same. Nevertheless, the formula with the infinite bound is very misleading (and the discussion above shows I'm not the only person to think so), as it causes to think there is a limit process while the formula is quite trivial. I may add a small hint that fix that. maimonid (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Maimonid: You are welcome. I was worried in your original edit about giving too much weight to this one not-important formula, but I think the current formulation avoids that problem nicely. --JBL (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

ISO codes

I wanted to type the floor function symbols but, although I knew they existed, they were rather hard to find with Google. I even clicked on Misplaced Pages's Floor and ceiling functions page! Ha. Fat chance that the "new" Wiki would actually have what I'm looking for!  :-)

This is a test. I've added something useful to the page and have a bet with myself that some Wiki editor will find reason to remove my change without finding an alternate way to provide the same useful information. What do I win? Jamesdowallen (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

If you'd spent half as much time making your edit decent (correctly placed, correctly formatted, on topic) instead of writing this dickish message, I wouldn't have had to fix it for you. You're welcome. --JBL (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, JBL. And, FTR, I 'd be more motivated to spend time improving Misplaced Pages if moronic and overly-pedantic editors didn't thoughtlessly revert my changes so often. I notice you didn't add the ceiling codes. I'll do that now that you've pointed the way. Thanks again! Jamesdowallen (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Those are not "ISO codes". They are the decimal values of the Unicode code points, used by HTML character entities. You can use the hex values into a HTML character entity by typing &#x<hex>; most of Unicode is defined using the hex number not the decimal one so this is preferred. I put examples in to replace the other text which did not format correctly anyway. May want to add (using &amp; to get it to print correctly) the source, but please use the hex value.Spitzak (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There is some message board software which DOES support the decimal codes but does NOT support the hexadecimal codes. I intervened on this page NOT because I had some theoretical idea of what the page 'should' look like, but because, as an ACTUAL Wiki user I found that the page did NOT serve my needs. I wanted the codes because I was composing a message-board post and was surprised to find the codes so hard to come by. (It was low-priority; I actually ended up rewording that post to avoid the need for floor symbols ::whack::) I tried to copy/paste the floor symbols. Doesn't work -- they're all* images. (Why? Do you use images for objects like the word 'the'?  :-) )

I DO know how to convert hexadecimal to decimal, but I did not wade through the Wiki article to find the one place where the useful information was available. Easy, obviously needed, information should be easy to find. Misplaced Pages used to be wonderful. Increasingly, unfortunately, the information REAL Misplaced Pages users are likely to want is drowned out in the tedium of structure. I comment on this more at my Talk page. HTH. Jamesdowallen (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Hope this is addressed with my last edit.

Spitzak (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Revert

The “chosen wiki-links were totally inappropriate” innuendo is predictably false: indeed, −⌊x⌋ = ⌈−x⌉ means namely that ⌊·⌋ and ⌈·⌉ are conjugate (wrt function composition) by “−”. Certainly I know that the composition of functions forms monoid not a group, but don’t monoids pertain to group theory? I suggest Joel B. Lewis to think before crying loudly about bad links. Moreover, removal of the additive inverse link borders vandalism, after all.

Also note that Joel’s edit confronts WP:Writing better articles for the sake of confronting the nasty person Incnis_Mrsi. The “{x} + {−x} ” piece was deleted without appearing in fractional part? Go and save it there, why should my cleanup be reverted? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• B-Class Computer science articles
• Mid-importance Computer science articles
• WikiProject Computer science articles
• B-Class mathematics articles
• Mid-priority mathematics articles