Talk:Lotka's law

There is something wrong with the logic behind this table. If you multiple it out you have 238 articles as (10 x 1 + 9 x 1 + 8 x 2 + 7 x 2 + 6 x 3 + 5 x 4 + 4 x 3 + 3 x 11 + 2 x 25 + 1 x 45) = 238 and 100 writers. So the average here is 2.4 articles per writer not 1 article per writer as claimed

(this is not true you are assuming that the writers are independent or unique. no where in the article was that claim made) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.40.162 (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Yet it claimed to have an average of one per writer.

Could someone who knows please correct the table. BernardZ 05:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The table is a strange way of stating the law, which is not really a law, per se, but a prediction, like Moore's Law. The law claims that for a given field, there is an inverse square relationship that exists between the number of discrete contributions by any one persons working in that field, and the number of peers with a similar contribution rate.

So, if you ask yourself: "I wonder of the 100 people who publish in this field, how many peers, Y, have contributed just as many articles, X, as Gary who has contributed 12."

For this question, the law takes this form:

y=1/x2

y=1/122

y=1/144

y=.694444

So, we see that Gary is most likely the most prolific author in his field. We also note that Gary is probably padding his CV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.239.115 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lotka's law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100204183250/http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v4i1p4.html to http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v4i1p4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The figure, error in explanation?
Hi, in the plotted curve, isn't it for C=100, n=2? It says C=1, n=2 --S.POROY (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)