Talk:S-expression: Difference between revisions

Line 67:

Why --[[User:Eufalesio|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio|talk]]) 15:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

: There used to be a section on what I call "S-factorizations" (formerly S-monzos before realising that term was taken), but it was moved to [[S-expression/Advanced results]], but S-factorizations are mentioned on the page so probably it should be moved back onto the page, leaving the mathematical derivations section and the abstraction section there. You might ask why not use normal monzos and the answer is it's clearer for the way S-commas work, and this sense is illuminated if you understand the abstraction section whereby you can understand how each infinite comma family of an S-expression is actually readable in a generalised sense based on an abstract harmonic series. But probably that should stay there with the mathematical derivations at least as long as I've written it in terms of group theory. But it does give an additional answer to the question, so I wonder if including it might be acceptable under some collapsable section? (IDK if those are possible on MediaWiki...) --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 23:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

: There used to be a section on what I call "S-factorizations" (formerly S-monzos before realising that term was taken), but it was moved to [[S-expression/Advanced results]], but S-factorizations are mentioned on the page so probably it should be moved back onto the page, leaving the mathematical derivations section and the abstraction section there. You might ask why not use normal monzos and the answer is it's clearer for the way S-commas work, and this sense is illuminated if you understand the abstraction section whereby you can understand how each infinite comma family of an S-expression is actually readable in a generalised sense based on an abstract harmonic series. But probably that should stay there with the mathematical derivations at least as long as I've written it in terms of group theory. But it does give an additional answer to the question (which also isn't useless as the two examples of potentially interest show), so I wonder if including it might be acceptable under some collapsable section? (IDK if those are possible on MediaWiki...) --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 23:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:04, 26 May 2026 view source Godtone (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, emailconfirmed 2,384 edits m →No monzos?: elaborate ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 23:05, 26 May 2026 view source Godtone (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, emailconfirmed 2,384 edits m →No monzos?: elaborate
Line 67:		Line 67:
	Why --[[User:Eufalesio\|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio\|talk]]) 15:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)		Why --[[User:Eufalesio\|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio\|talk]]) 15:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

	: There used to be a section on what I call "S-factorizations" (formerly S-monzos before realising that term was taken), but it was moved to [[S-expression/Advanced results]], but S-factorizations are mentioned on the page so probably it should be moved back onto the page, leaving the mathematical derivations section and the abstraction section there. You might ask why not use normal monzos and the answer is it's clearer for the way S-commas work, and this sense is illuminated if you understand the abstraction section whereby you can understand how each infinite comma family of an S-expression is actually readable in a generalised sense based on an abstract harmonic series. But probably that should stay there with the mathematical derivations at least as long as I've written it in terms of group theory. But it does give an additional answer to the question, so I wonder if including it might be acceptable under some collapsable section? (IDK if those are possible on MediaWiki...) --[[User:Godtone\|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone\|talk]]) 23:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)		: There used to be a section on what I call "S-factorizations" (formerly S-monzos before realising that term was taken), but it was moved to [[S-expression/Advanced results]], but S-factorizations are mentioned on the page so probably it should be moved back onto the page, leaving the mathematical derivations section and the abstraction section there. You might ask why not use normal monzos and the answer is it's clearer for the way S-commas work, and this sense is illuminated if you understand the abstraction section whereby you can understand how each infinite comma family of an S-expression is actually readable in a generalised sense based on an abstract harmonic series. But probably that should stay there with the mathematical derivations at least as long as I've written it in terms of group theory. But it does give an additional answer to the question (which also isn't useless as the two examples of potentially interest show), so I wonder if including it might be acceptable under some collapsable section? (IDK if those are possible on MediaWiki...) --[[User:Godtone\|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone\|talk]]) 23:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)