Talk:Generalized arithmetic progression

[Untitled]

Please use subscripts to avoid ambiguity. Also, why do m and n and so on need to be restricted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eternalblisss (talk • contribs) 16:37, May 29, 2008 (UTC)

[Critique Upon An Initial Reading]

This page is horribly written. I wanted to learn from it. Now I probably will have to learn the subject and THEN edit the page to make sense. In the description of semilinear sets, new symbols are introduced willy nilly without any indication of the domain of discourse for the new symbols, so that the reader is left fairly confused about what is meant by anything written. Matt Insall 00:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espresso-hound (talk • contribs)

[Recommended Revision #00001]

In the sentence

"More generally, let

$L(C;P)$

be the set of all elements $x$ in $N^{n}$ of the form

$x=c_{0}+\sum _{i=1}^{m}k_{i}x_{i},$

with $c_{0}$ in $C$, $x_{1},\ldots ,x_{m}$ in $P$, and $k_{1},\ldots ,k_{m}$ in $N$."

the symbol $P$ should have been introduced with its domain of discourse, prior to use. It is confusing to have to figure out later from context that $P$ must be a subset of the n-fold power of N. Someone knowledgeable about semilinear sets needs to clean this up. Matt Insall 01:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espresso-hound (talk • contribs)

Problems

Agreed with others that this article needs serious work. For starters, a semilinear set is over multiple dimensions (a set of vectors), unlike what is called a generalized arithmetic progression, so I corrected that description in the lead.

However, another problem is that what is called a generalized arithmetic progression is simply the same as an eventually-periodic set of integers, and this is not at all clear from the article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)