Talk:Newton's identities
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It would help if the variable in the polynomial would be x instead of λ. Perhaps the roots could be named r1, r2 etc and the coefficients c1, c2 etc. --MarSch 15:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- I specifically wanted to differentiate the variable λ from the roots
. I guess it's a matter of taste, since your suggested notations seemed ugly to me :-/ At least I did think about the notation. Did I need to say that I don't want to change it?---CH (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Schur polynomial vandalism
Watch out, formulas like that are vulnerable to vandalism in which someone changes the powers to plausible looking but incorrect values. Indeed, an anonymous editor using the IP address 165.123.166.36 (registered to the University of Pennsylvania) has done just that, although this might possibly have been a well-intentioned edit. ---CH (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Heh, except that in this case 165.123.166.36 was correct :-/ Oh, well, exception which proves the rule about anonymous editors. I don't know how this expression got so messed up in the first place, but anyway, I think we all agree the current version is correct.---CH (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Coefficients in polynomial expansion
For the polynomial expansion to be coherent with the first form of Newton's identities given in the article, it should be written
where a0 = 1. Gpicard 16:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks. Zaslav 06:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Students beware
I extensively rewrote the November 2005 version of this article and had been monitoring it for bad edits until a few months ago, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.
Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited; see User:Hillman/Archive. I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions. In particular, I haven't verified the claim in the preceding section. There were good reasons why I chose the somewhat unconventional looking signs that I did in the Novemver 2005 version. Changing signs to "prettify" a formula like this is a good way to change truth into falsehood, although Gpicard (talk • contribs) might be correct in what he says above, since I haven't had the heart to check.
Good luck to all students in your search for information, regardless!---CH 02:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] barnstar of sorts
Excellent article! I read it all the way through rather carefully today. (I'd give user:Hillman a barnstar on at user talk:Hillman but for the fact that he's gone into seclusion and blanked and protected his user- and talk-pages.) Michael Hardy 00:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Appropriate contents
I deleted the section on "Enumerative combinatorics". It didn't have any content about Newton's identities. It was also vague on what it was about. I suggest that it might belong somewhere else, but only after improvement. Zaslav 21:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The section "Relation with symmetric groups" is poorly written. How can a function of ts be defined without reference to quantities called ts? Better explanation is needed. I am trying an improvement, keeping in mind that the contents should be related closely to Newton's identities. Zaslav 21:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Changed my mind: I cannot fix this section, I have no idea what the purpose is. Only the first few lines seem to have any connection with the symmetric group. If anyone cares to, they should make sure the definitions are complete and the purpose is explained very carefully, and that the connection to Newton's identities is explained carefully. I am going to delete most of it for now. Zaslav 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
