Talk:Caravelli-Traversa-Di Ventra equation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 13 March 2024 by reviewer Guessitsavis (talk · contribs).

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Help?

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

hi, I'm trying to add this page. If you end up here, could you please double check that what I wrote makes sense? The equation is mentioned both in memristors and Neuromorphic engineering, and has the flavour of a fundamental result, at least in the context of memristive evolution. I saw an invited talk by Caravelli on the subject at the APS March Meeting, and my advisor is making me look into it. Very interesting stuff. There are no other equations like this one. Physics95 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please add a reference which uses the term "Caravelli-Traversa-Di Ventra equation". The fact that they wrote a paper together and had an equation does not make it a thing until someone else publishes a paper referring to that equation by that name. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feedback from New Page Review process

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: The original paper has 44 citations. In addition, most of the sources on the web for this equation are by the authors. I am very dubious that this page passes the general "Peer Recognition" criteria. I am tagging it to give you a chance to improve it, rather than directly moving it back to draft or nominating for deletion.

Ldm1954 (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic