 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
4chan Contributions
editSomeone on 4chan has done some work on this, is this interesting? 129.234.0.19 (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
A senior editor is deliberately and maliciously violating WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD because of a political vendetta against the source, which constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV. The link to the original proof discussed in the article was removed and replaced by a link to a secondary source that doesn’t even include a reference to the proof itself. Reputation of 4chan notwithstanding, it was the host of the original proof. Proposing the original citation be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.251.38 (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
How can a Verge article be more reliable than the actual, word by word mathematical proof, as it was first written by its original author? The article doesnt have any sort of demonstration of the solution, and it does a fairly bad job at explaining what both the problem and the solution are, its useless. If you dont want to link directly to a four chan archive for whatever reason, at least screencap the messages and use that as source. Please keep your crummy politics out of academia and mathematics. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leibnizfanacc (talk • contribs) 22:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
This is why you don't give political idealogues power. I actively discourage people in my life from using this site for this exact reason. You reap what you sow I suppose. 160.2.73.201 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Leibnizfanacc: To answer both contributor's issues; the rationale I would have for the use of the Verge article instead of the 4Chan article isn't reliability. On that matter, you are correct and the original 4Chan link would be useful for any necessary details in explaining the situation. The reason the Verge article is a good fit for this page is notability. A mostly credible and fairly large news site reporting on a 4Chan post is a big sign that such a post is notable. Just the post by itself, due to it being a primary source, likely isn't enough to establish notability. As for the idea of giving "political idealogues power" I have no idea what you mean and I don't think it's very on topic anyway. I think both websites, the Verge and the original post, are useful in this article, so we can probably find a good middle ground. I encourage you both to be bold but to also consider my view of the matter. Integral Python click here to argue with me 14:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- The "political ideologues" thing is a reference to me–a group of folks on Twitter have decided that not using anonymous 4chan posts and tweets as reliable sources in another article is politically-motivated. I think they think I am trying to hide links to 4chan, as though I'm hoping that will make it so fewer people know about the site. Not sure where that impression came from, since I have written a handful of articles that directly mention and wikilink 4chan for our readers, but here we are. Anyway, I'm not sure if these commenters have noticed or not, but after removing the 4chan post as an inline citation I added it to the "External links" section. That way readers can still view the original post (well, an archived version of it) if they wish, but it's not used to directly support claims made in the article. Not sure if Leibniz & co. would agree but I actually think that links are more visible to the reader when they're placed in the external links section than when they're among the references. My 2¢. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Ahhh, I see now - thanks for the clarification! I agree having it as an external link probably works best for the purposes of this article. Integral Python click here to argue with me 17:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The "political ideologues" thing is a reference to me–a group of folks on Twitter have decided that not using anonymous 4chan posts and tweets as reliable sources in another article is politically-motivated. I think they think I am trying to hide links to 4chan, as though I'm hoping that will make it so fewer people know about the site. Not sure where that impression came from, since I have written a handful of articles that directly mention and wikilink 4chan for our readers, but here we are. Anyway, I'm not sure if these commenters have noticed or not, but after removing the 4chan post as an inline citation I added it to the "External links" section. That way readers can still view the original post (well, an archived version of it) if they wish, but it's not used to directly support claims made in the article. Not sure if Leibniz & co. would agree but I actually think that links are more visible to the reader when they're placed in the external links section than when they're among the references. My 2¢. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The Verge article makes various claims that are patently false, poorly informed, or misrepresented. While it may represent notability, it doesn't represent credibility. Though the interpretive claims for which the TheVerge is used as a source on this article are certainly within reason, the endorsement of TheVerge as a source here may lead people to mistake the other statements in their article as credible as well. I just wanted to voice my apprehension about labeling the source as "mostly credible" in this talk page. It can attest only to the notability and general public interest, as in citations A and B, but it does not have the veracity as a source to support C. Since it's a statement from someone interviewed, it should just be presented as a quote instead, or have a different source cited for the claim, and likewise for future additions. 69.222.182.215 (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Name
editI will always be disappointed these aren't called "supermutations". 「ディノ奴千？！」☎ Dinoguy1000 04:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
History
editThe history section mentions only 2011 and 2018, but IMO important progress has been made in 2013 and 2014. It does not mention the simple recursive "standard" algorithm cited by Egan on his page [2] as "(...) I learned from an excellent overview (...) by Nathaniel Johnston [1]"? But that's an overview, it's not the "original" -- what is that original? probably Ashlock & al from 1993, can't get my hands on it but from the snippet displayed by google books it seems they used that algorithm... — MFH:Talk 08:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- In December 2023 I published an article in which he is presented a recursive algorithm for generating superpermutations of the same length of Gren Egan result. The algorithm uses fragments of permutations called Chains. The originality of this algorithm is that it is recursive and generates superperutations of length n! + (n−1)! + (n−2)! + (n−3)! + n − 3 with only (n-1)(n-3)! steps.See https://dx.doi.org/10.17654/2277141723021 for the article and https://www.maplesoft.com/applications/Detail.aspx?id=155124 for the algorithm code in maple language. Both can be downloaded for free. Guaseppe (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)