Talk:Fokker block
Math styles
This is what I'm sticking to:
- Matrices should be uppercase and roman, e.g. V.
- Vectors or matrix rows should be roman, e.g. v.
- Scalar variables or matrix/vector entries should be italic, e.g. n.
- Letter-denoted functions should generally be italic, e.g. f (x), except when interpreted as vectors, e.g. v (c).
- Word-denoted functions should be roman, e.g. log (x).
- Use
<math>for "newline math" (in contrast to inline math).
Good enough?
And btw, is there a reason for the S[i] to have brackets instead of parentheses? FloraC (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @FloraC: Yes it looks better in the rendered HTML page, but it looks worse in wikitext because it's to much control chars (ticks and tags) between the meaningful content. As I know, math can be configured to use text output for simple formatting. (Another option would be to roll our own template, module whatever to transform
^and_insupandsubtags.) For example, here is what I see in the first paragraph of the current version of section "Second definition of a Fokker block":
Let us define a new set of vals by u<sub>''k''</sub> = ''P''v<sub>''k''</sub> - v<sub>''k''</sub> (2) v<sub>''n''</sub>. To apply these vals
to S[''i''], note first that floor ((''e''<sub>''n''</sub>''i'' + ''a''<sub>''n''</sub>)/''P'') = floor (''i'' + ''a''<sub>''n''</sub>/''P'')
= ''i'', so that v<sub>''n''</sub> (S[''i'']) = ''i''. Hence u<sub>''n''</sub> (S[''i'']) = ''P''v<sub>''n''</sub> - v<sub>''n''</sub> (2)
v<sub>''n''</sub> = 0, while for ''k'' < ''n'', u<sub>''k''</sub> (S[''i'']) = ''P''v<sub>''k''</sub>(S[''i'']) - v<sub>''k''</sub> (2)
''i''. Since ''x'' - 1 < floor(''x'') ≤ ''x'', we have (''e''<sub>''k''</sub>''i'' + ''a''<sub>''k''</sub>)/''P'' - 1 < floor
((''e''<sub>''k''</sub>''i'' + ''a''<sub>''k''</sub>)/''P'') ≤ (''e''<sub>''k''</sub>''i'' + ''a''<sub>''k''</sub>)/''P'', so that
''e''<sub>''k''</sub>''i'' + ''a''<sub>''k''</sub> - ''P'' < ''P''v<sub>''k''</sub> (S[''i'']) ≤ ''e''<sub>''k''</sub>''i'' +
''a''<sub>''k''</sub>. Since ''e''<sub>''k''</sub> = v<sub>''k''</sub> (2), this gives us ''a''<sub>''k''</sub> - ''P'' <
u<sub>''k''</sub> (S[''i'']) ≤ ''a''<sub>''k''</sub>. This means that for each of the vals u<sub>''k''</sub>, the scale is mapped to a set of
''P'' integers.
- I hope you see my point. Maybe this is exactly what Inthar expresses in the proposal Xenharmonic Wiki:Things to do#Improve accessibility of wiki and present info in a non-technical way (BTW: I'm sure we need a shortcut for this, let's try Xenwiki:Accessibility). --Xenwolf (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah and it was super tedious to work on, and hopefully no one is gonna work on it anymore. I'm considering using more newline maths.
Rename to "periodicity block"?
It doesn't seem like there are many things called "periodicity block" in general, so I think it would be more logical to simply use the term "periodicity block" chosen by Fokker himself. There doesn't seem to be a problem with the term "periodicity block" by itself, except maybe that there's potentially a better option out there that hasn't been considered yet (or hasn't been considered here at least), and I don't think we need to add Fokker's name to make it somehow clearer. Wikipedia seems to prefer "Fokker periodicity block", but I couldn't find the reasoning for this choice.
That said, it's a quite low priority issue to me, but if further work is going to be done to improve this page, I'd like to see the occasion taken to choose descriptive terms over ones based on people's names, especially for fundamental theory concepts like this one. --Fredg999 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with this change, ABSOLUTELY. Heck, let's go ahead and find other stuff like this that could do with more descriptive names (I'd keep "monzo" though, since it's too ingrained). --VectorGraphics (talk)