This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
On circumstantial grounds alone (techniques employed, venue of publication), the answer is "of course not". Concretely, it's easy to identify the error: in the final paragraph on page 2, the author proposes to substitute x + 1 for x in equation (3.4), but equation (3.4) is valid only for those values of x that actually are solutions, not in general. --
207.232.84.226 (
talk)
01:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)reply
... that all solutions of the Erdős–Moser equation correspond to
convergents of
ln(2), yielding "one of very few instances where a large scale computation of a numerical constant has an application"?
ALT1: ... that the only known solution to the Erdős–Moser equation is 1 + 2 = 3?
I'll also note that the article would be better with a bit more prose to contextualize what is going on here. Currently the article itself is very inaccessible to the average reader, it would be nice to have a background of why this equation is important (I see the term "Diophantine equation" being used, maybe you could include a few sentences on how this relates to the article) and some prose (as opposed to proofs) to convey the methods being used to solve it.
Sohom (
talk)
01:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
According to our DYK rules, "Hooks should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". I don't think that is the case for the proposed hook. Also, I think the hook is misleading: as far as we know, it could be the case that all solutions of the equation are the single solution 1+2=3, unrelated to the log(2) calculation. And calling this an "application" is dubious when it is just a mathematical calculation used to support another mathematical calculation. I have generally interpreted this rule as requiring that the hook connect the subject to some real-world topic beyond mathematics (just as we require that hooks about fiction connect the subject to some real-world topic beyond the plot). Unfortunately I see no non-mathematics at all in the article, on which to build a hook. It's kind of interesting to me that the known lower bound on a second solution is such a huge number, but I don't think I represent a general reader for this purpose. I do also agree that the walls of equations make the article hard to read (not just to the average reader), but that is not really a DYK criterion. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
To be honest, as a non-math guy, this hook is remarkably uninteresting. Though that is obviously my opinion, it shows that it is likely not a suitable one, or the article as a whole as a matter of a fact.
TheBritinator (
talk)
01:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think it's better. It still doesn't relate to non-mathematics at all, but at least it's (1) at a level understandable to the general reader, and (2) kind of intriguing how something so basic-looking as 1+2=3 could be the basis of something where we don't know if there is another solution. The question is whether it's enough better to pass the interestingness test. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
21:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply