Talk:Subgroup distortion
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | A fact from Subgroup distortion appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 September 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
( )
... that the distortion associated with extra symmetries can be complicated enough to encode text?Source: Chatterji, Indira; Kahrobaei, Delaram; Ni Yen Lu (2016). "Cryptosystems using subgroup distortion". arXiv:1610.07515ALT1: ... that the distortion associated with extra symmetries can be any computable function that doesn't grow too quickly?Source: Theorem 2 in Olshanskii, A. Yu. (1997). "On subgroup distortion in finitely presented groups". Matematicheskiĭ Sbornik. 188 (11): 51–98. Bibcode:1997SbMat.188.1617O. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.115.1717. doi:10.1070/SM1997v188n11ABEH000276. S2CID 250919942.- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mihi Edwards
- Comment: I'm not sure I've explained what subgroup distortion is at an elementary enough level; it's hard to do when most people aren't even familiar with groups.
Moved to mainspace by Bernanke's Crossbow (talk). Self-nominated at 10:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC).
- Yeah, it may be a good idea to try a different hook angle here as right now I don't think regular readers are going to understand either hook very well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps:
ALT2: ... that Misha Gromov introduced subgroup distortion theory in 1993?Source: Gromov, M. (1993). Asymptotic Invariants of Infinite Groups.
- As for the rest of the review, article is new enough, long enough, no problems with BLP, NPOV, etc. No copyvios detected. QPQ done.
The paragraph ending with is at least exponentially distorted with base 2
needs a reference. Perhaps it was just meant to be combined with the following sentence? Other than that, no referencing problems.- Yes, if the sources for two consecutive paragraphs coincide, then I usually omit the footnotes from the initial paragraph. I've added the duplicate footnotes now. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- The ALT2 hook I added needs to be approved. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, ALT2 is certainly comprehensible, but not really interesting. Someone developed a new (and to me, very abstract ^^) mathematical theory in a certain year – I personally would be unlikely to click for more info on that. The original hooks had the opposite problem, they sounded interesting, but already too complicate to understand as a hook. Maybe there's a middle ground somewhere? I find ALT0 to be most interesting, but couldn't verify it in the text. @Bernanke's Crossbow I assume
The simplification in a word problem induced by subgroup distortion can be quantified as a cryptosystem
is meant to refer to text encoding, but could you re-phrase that in the article so it sounds more like in the hook? And then maybe amend ALT2 with info about its use, like so:- ALT2a: ... that subgroup distortion theory, introduced by Misha Gromov in 1993, can help encode text?
- Let me know what you think, and if it's even accurate. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- @LordPeterII: Your proposal is accurate. I didn't put much effort into that section of the article in my first draft, partly because I had trouble understanding the source. Now that it's turning out to be important, I went back; found a new source or two; and wrote up the details with much more care. Let me know if the connection between ALT2a and the text remains ambiguous. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Need another reviewer to approve ALT2a, maybe @RoySmith? If you agree, that is. –LordPeterII (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
ALT2a sounds good to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Cool. I've struck the other ones. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- @LordPeterII: Your proposal is accurate. I didn't put much effort into that section of the article in my first draft, partly because I had trouble understanding the source. Now that it's turning out to be important, I went back; found a new source or two; and wrote up the details with much more care. Let me know if the connection between ALT2a and the text remains ambiguous. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, ALT2 is certainly comprehensible, but not really interesting. Someone developed a new (and to me, very abstract ^^) mathematical theory in a certain year – I personally would be unlikely to click for more info on that. The original hooks had the opposite problem, they sounded interesting, but already too complicate to understand as a hook. Maybe there's a middle ground somewhere? I find ALT0 to be most interesting, but couldn't verify it in the text. @Bernanke's Crossbow I assume
