User talk:Garald

Number theory rewrite
Hi, Garald. Unfortunately, I won't have time today to read this article as I am totally swamped. I did glance at it and a quick fix I can suggest is that WP:MOSMATH indicates that one should refrain from using the first person plural in the article, so you may want to change that so no one raises a fuss about something that has nothing to do with the content. I'll try to take a look at the article this weekend. Best, RobHar (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Arithmetic of elliptic curves
I do not agree with your recent edit on Number theory: Theory of elliptic curves is a part of number theory, while arithmetic of elliptic curves concerns the way of computing efficiency in the group of an elliptic curve (which is important in cryptography). I'll not revert your edit, because this point is minor in this article, but, if you are convinced, please revert it yourself.D.Lazard (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The arithmetic of elliptic curves is most definitely a term for the "number theory" of elliptic curves. There are any number of sources that will back up that statement (see for example, Silverman's book, Tate's article, or Gross' article). Perhaps you are thinking about arithmetic on elliptic curves. Or maybe the term also means what you are saying, but that is certainly not the most prominent meaning. RobHar (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. I have read the Wikipedia article arithmetic of elliptic curves and, clearly it is about the theory of elliptic curves. It is remarkable that, in this article, there is no mention of the importance of elliptic curves and other Abelian varieties in Cryptography. D.Lazard (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean in the page on the arithmetic of elliptic curves or on the new number theory page? In the former, yes, that may be a good addition. In the latter - perhaps it might be worth mentioning at some point if the "computations in number theory" section is expanded? Garald (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I meant the page on arithmetic of elliptic curves. The page elliptic curve is much better from this point of view. By the way there is a lot of interactions between number theory and computer science which is not restricted to cryptography nor to computation in number theory (for example the correct rounding of floating point arithmetic uses results of transcendence theory). In my opinion, the most important fact is that this interaction has impulsed new directions of research in number theory. It should be worth to develop this point in the page number theory, but I am unable to do this: I am not a number theorist; I am specialist of computer algebra and especially on the part of computer algebra related to algebraic geometry (systems of algebraic equations). What I know of number theory in relationship with computer science comes mainly from seminars and conferences. D.Lazard (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Number theory
Hi Garald, i assessed the article on Saturday (this can be seen by looking at talk history). It was completely unassessed; there's a drive to assess any unassessed articles on Wikipedia. Assessment isn't an exact science and, at the lower levels of class, it's better to have a rough assessment to start with and get it on the board rather than have it unassessed whilst agonising about the correct assessment. It's different for GA and FA where there are more formal processes which you probably know about. The article seems to be clearly at least C class because it's got quite a lot of content which people have clearly spent some time writing, with some references. Looking at it again it might even be regarded as b-class but i'll let others discuss, feel free to move it up if necessary, thanks Tom B (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * b-class and below isn't meant to be as considered as the processes for GA and FA, i'm sorry you thought it was a bit of a blow, i think at class level "stub to b" it's more to give a rough guide to an article's development. on the talkpage i had noticed when i assessed that someone had just rewritten from userspace. I'm always wary of going straight to be B as some projects have higher standards than others and i think maths is one of these. i've uprated it to b-class as it seems quite well written but i've just noticed that the whole of the "recent approaches" section has no references so that's probably the first thing you'll need to fix. some links go to disambiguation pages so i'll try and disambiguate. you may want to ask for peer review and/or bring to GA at some point. Tom B (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Number theory and algebraic geometry
Hi Garald,

You have done I great work on the page on number theory.

I am trying a similar work on algebraic geometry. It is a long time work, because the starting point was very low. I do not know if you watch this article. Therefore I inform you here. Because of the connexions between number theory and algebraic geometry, you may want to give your opinion on algebraic geometry, and hopefully edit it.

Best wishes for the new year. D.Lazard (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources section for Number Theory article
Hi Garald,

I randomly came across the Number theory article, and your question "What is to be done?" on the talk page made me think, "well, it needs a proper bibliography/sources section, to it bring more in line with the Penrose tiling article as suggested by User:Gandalf." So I tried my hand at the idea, with the result in my sandbox User:MinorProphet/. I thought it looked OK, so having nothing better to do I made a list on my talk page of most of the cited works in the Number Theory article, along with a few thoughts about some minor improvements to the history sections. Rather than boldly upload the whole thing in one go, I thought I would canvass your opinion here. Obviously the biblio is not much use without re-writing the article refs, so I'm cautiously offering to do that as well (along the lines of my sandbox effort, or whatever might be needed). PS I'm definitely not a mathematician. >MinorProphet (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your positive comments. I'll wait till you have some wiki-time. Also signing previous post...>MinorProphet (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed your original message, it disappeared in a hidden section of the bibliography. I'll make a start, I think adding the sources as a new section, and working though the article by sections. The talk page at User_talk:MinorProphet/Bibliography is now on my watchlist. If you would prefer anywhere else for further discussion, (eg Talk:Number theory) or here, or my talk, please say. >MinorProphet (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Point
Perhaps you would like to reply to the point, as far as Andre Weil is concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.254.141.145 (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's much of a point! Garald (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Point No.1. I want proof that Andre Weil contributed to the study of Perfect Numbers.
 * I saw Weil belittle them, some time ago.
 * Point No.2. Andre Weil is quoted by the text as belittling Fermat.
 * Wiles' work needed modification. Perhaps it could be said that Weil contributed to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.254.137.229 (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Weil's paper of 1967 could be viewed as having some relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.254.141.241 (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Fields Medal page
Hello there,I'm that user who's been the victim of editing the Fields Medal page(i.e.I got blocked with charge of Vandalism.).I've got three question:1)When the current protected status of that page ends,Does the page current contents remain in place or they are replaced with the old version? 2)I've prepared a new and somehow comprehensive table about Fields medalists.I posted this table on the discussion section of the Fields Medal page,and I request for comments about this(If You come there and see my that table I will be really glad,and don't forget to put your comment about it down there!;-)),but so far,just one person did so.Is it normal? 3)Should I submit a request for edit to replace the new table with current one?Or should I wait for reaching a consensus?Thank You. Rezameyqani (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Rezameyqani (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Klaus Roth
Hi, I reverted your claim that Klaus Roth has passed away for now, because I couldn't find any confirmation in reliable sources (at least a quick Google search didn't uncover anything). Can you please provide a good reference? Thank you. — Yerpo Eh? 13:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the Chalkdust reference is good enough for the time being. His death is now recorded. — Yerpo Eh? 16:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

"analytical" = Complex analysis ???
Hello, I noticed a dubious thing in Number theory that was introduced by you in a 2011 edit: In "Questions in number theory are often best understood through the study of analytical objects" "analytical" links to Complex analysis.

I have just began to study number theory, but I believe the reference ought to be to the generic Mathematical_analysis. Am I right?

Since I figured out that it came from you and you're certainly a lot more competent than me, I thought it'd be best to ask you before touching the article or discussing in its talk page.

If I'm right feel free to fix the link by yourself.

I'll wait a few days and if I don't hear from you I'll add some tag and a discussion in the article's tag page

Gabrolf (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)