Jump to content

Talk:Symbolic method (combinatorics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zaslav (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 25 December 2011 (Merger proposal: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Obscure and incomprehensible article

This article is an incomprehensible account of one specialized theory of combinatorial enumeration due to Flajolet et al. It is completely opaque to the uninitiated reader. I propose it be deleted or rewritten from the ground up.

I plan to merge into this article the so-called "Fundamental theorem of combinatorial enumeration" and let anyone who cares to do so take care of the rewriting. Zaslav (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge done. Changed link "Fundamental theorem of combinatorial enumeration" due to merge. Zaslav (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objections from former talk page of "Fundamental theorem of combinatorial enumeration"

The following is the talk page of "Fundamental theorem of combinatorial enumeration", moved here when that article was moved into "Symbolic combinatorics". Zaslav (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is obscure and should be deleted

This article is an unintentional work of obfuscation. The name "fundamental theorem of combinatorial enumeration" is not standard and it could refer to any number of things. Google reveals very few uses of the phrase "fundamental theorem of combinatorial enumeration", and most of the hits that it does have are derived from Wikipedia itself. The phrase is pretentious. The theorem here is a cumbersome and highly formal generalization of some good ideas in combinatorics. It is an unworkable idea for enumerative combinatorics to have a "fundamental theorem"; it is like having a universal solvent in chemistry. While the theorem here has some merit, the entire article should simply be folded into the article on symbolic combinatorics. Greg Kuperberg (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kuperberg, except that I don't know whether or not the article merits merging into another article. All his objections are valid. There is no such thing in enumerative combinatorics as an acknowledged "fundamental theorem". I also found the article to be extraordinarily technical, overspecialized, and obscure. Zaslav (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal