Talk:Quasi-arithmetic mean

I noticed that the spelling of this page has changed and been reverted.

I don't care which spelling is chosen, but it's distinctly odd to have this page spelled generalised f-mean while another page is spelled generalized mean, especially since the latter was apparently chosen over the more common name "power mean" especially to parallel this page. (And note the spelling "generalized f-mean" in that article.) 63.150.32.42 01:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

So should this be "generalised f-mean," "quasi-arithmetic mean," or "quasiarithmetic mean" (which I created as a redirect some time ago)? The link to the PDF in history is dead and/or inaccessible, but the Hungarian page would indicate that "quasiarithmetic mean" is preferred there (which, from what I can tell, is also true of Hungarian-authored literature published in English, e.g., Aczél's "Determination of all additive quasiarithmetic mean codeword lengths" and the papers that reference it). But many English-speakers like "quasi-arithmetic" due to a tradition of hyphenation and the fact that "i" and "a" are vowels. The Korean page seems to prefer "generalised f-mean." Thoughts? Calbaer 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it matter that Kolmogorov wrote paper about this mean in 1930?.. Infovarius (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

proper use of TeX
I found this
 * $$M_f(x_1,\dots,x_k,x_{k+1},\dots,x_n) = M_f(\underbrace{m,\dots,m}_{k \mbox{ times}},x_{k+1},\dots,x_n)$$

I changed it to this:
 * $$M_f(x_1,\dots,x_k,x_{k+1},\dots,x_n) = M_f(\underbrace{m,\dots,m}_{k \text{ times}},x_{k+1},\dots,x_n)$$

The size mismatch in the subscript under the underbrace resulted from use of \mbox where \text should have been used. That's one of several problems with that particular uncouth usage. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)