Talk:Fokker block: Difference between revisions

(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 82:

– [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 22:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

: The note's here to warn readers that the page is wrong: the second and third paragraphs in "Theory" are incorrect if we say that weak Fokker blocks are Fokker blocks. If it's not important to talk about strong and weak Fokker blocks on this page, those paragraphs can be deleted.

: The note's here to warn readers that the page is wrong: the second and third paragraphs in "Theory" are incorrect if we say that weak Fokker blocks are Fokker blocks. If it's not important to talk about strong and weak Fokker blocks on this page, those paragraphs can be deleted. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 02:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:: I don't see why they would be incorrect, you just get a constant structure with out-of-order steps but all the theoretical properties are intact. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 11:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::: Paragraph 2 currently says "a rank-2 Fokker block has max variety at most 2 (hence is a mos)", which would definitely have to be removed. The discrepancy in paragraph 3 is less egregious, although still not ideal. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 21:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: But it is correct! You just get a MOS/constant structure with negative steps, which may be unintuitive or weird, but it's not wrong. E.g. [[glamma]] tempers via the [12 19 27 34] "epimorph", which maps 5/4 to 3 steps and 6/5 to 4 steps, so it's no wonder you get negative steps from it. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 22:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 22:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
-: The note's here to warn readers that the page is wrong: the second and third paragraphs in "Theory" are incorrect if we say that weak Fokker blocks are Fokker blocks. If it's not important to talk about strong and weak Fokker blocks on this page, those paragraphs can be deleted.
+: The note's here to warn readers that the page is wrong: the second and third paragraphs in "Theory" are incorrect if we say that weak Fokker blocks are Fokker blocks. If it's not important to talk about strong and weak Fokker blocks on this page, those paragraphs can be deleted. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 02:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
+:: I don't see why they would be incorrect, you just get a constant structure with out-of-order steps but all the theoretical properties are intact. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 11:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
+::: Paragraph 2 currently says "a rank-2 Fokker block has max variety at most 2 (hence is a mos)", which would definitely have to be removed. The discrepancy in paragraph 3 is less egregious, although still not ideal. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 21:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
+:::: But it is correct! You just get a MOS/constant structure with negative steps, which may be unintuitive or weird, but it's not wrong. E.g. [[glamma]] tempers via the [12 19 27 34] "epimorph", which maps 5/4 to 3 steps and 6/5 to 4 steps, so it's no wonder you get negative steps from it. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 22:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)