Talk:Defactoring algorithms
Readability and conclusion
This article is way too hard to read than necessary. It looks more like a note rather than an article, with so much development information that's better off collected in a dedicated "history" section. The algorithms should be presented much much more concisely.
The algorithms are currently presented in Mathematica, which isn't quite easy to decode. I think it should be presented in math formula or pseudocode.
The conclusion seems pretty subjective. I'm not sure "Hermite decomposition" can be treated as a single operation. It's (perhaps superficially) the case in Mathematica, but not in other programming languages or math in general.
I wonder if the original author(s) of this article will do me a favor to allow me to clean it up. Otherwise I'll have to start anew.
FloraC (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Aw, dang. I'm sorry that it was hard for you to read. It feels like so long since I thought about this topic. I think it's good for it to have a new pair of eyes on it, to help balance out my own idiosyncrasies. Please feel free to take a pass on everything, improving the article how you see fit. If we can come to a consensus on how best to present it, that will be best for the community. I only wish for anyone who wants to understand this stuff to have good resources for doing so. I'm glad you're interested in the same stuff! --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well I changed my mind. I decided to leave the contents of this dev-note- and research-style page as is, and start anew at Saturation, torsion, and contorsion/Methods, since what I actually want is an encyclopedic article that is suitable for reference. I'm taking the liberty instead of moving this page to something like Research on defactoring algorithms. FloraC (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)