User talk:D.Lazard
Add topic
Safe Primes, in RSA
[edit]Ok, let's try to discuss here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RSA_(cryptosystem)#Safe_Primes,_in_RSA_Key_Generation No "reliable sources" are needed here. Here you just need to think with your own head. This is math. In any case, I do not owe you anything, and I do not demand anything from you.
Coordinate Systems and Analytic Geometry
[edit]
Reverted Edit
[edit]Hi; May I ask why did you revert my edit on Factorization cause of "Duplicates the preceding paragraphs" ?. It's easy to understand, and it's a good and important Identity (mathematics). It does have a strong citation. Please check the source. In addition, I should say there are many differences between that and the preceding paragraphs. Mehdi J (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hello again. I did not recognize the duplicated part in the article. It's OK 🙏. However, there are some differences 🤔. Mehdi J (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- I did add something...; I don't think it's duplicated. Mehdi J (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- The formulas that you added are already presented, in a more general form, in the paragraphs just above. The fact that you wrote them is a slightly different form does not change the fact that you duplicated an existing content. Also, in the existing content, the variables denote any expression (said at the beginning od the section), and in your edit, it is not said what the variables denote, and the reader may guess that you restrict the formulas to real numbers, without any good reason for that. D.Lazard (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hey again, may I ask you to see my explanation on Talk:Factorization - Why that Identity?, I think it's a good idea to add that. Mehdi J (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- The formulas that you added are already presented, in a more general form, in the paragraphs just above. The fact that you wrote them is a slightly different form does not change the fact that you duplicated an existing content. Also, in the existing content, the variables denote any expression (said at the beginning od the section), and in your edit, it is not said what the variables denote, and the reader may guess that you restrict the formulas to real numbers, without any good reason for that. D.Lazard (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Question on an edit you did
[edit]I was reading the Isomorphism article and was confused by one sentence. I noticed that back in 2020 January 7 at 04:49, you made a major edit to that article, including that particular sentence. Can you please verify that you truely meant "Thus isomorphic structures cannot be distinguished from the point of view of structure only, and may often be identified." And not "Thus isomorphic structures cannot be distinguished from the point of view of structure only, and may often _not_ be identified." It felt as if a negative was missing somewhere in there.
Thank you for looking into this. WesT (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- I qgree that the sentence is confusing. Here, "be identified" is mathematical jargon, meaning "consideed the same". I'll fixed this tomorrow,if you donot do it before. D.Lazard (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2026 (UTC)