Talk:Anatoly Karatsuba/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Petition the Wikipedia administration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not how we do things here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We petition the Wikipedia administration to revert the previous extensive text about Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba, unlock it and allow its further editing; confirming that A.A. Karatsuba is a prominent scientist who made essential contributions to mathematics and his pioneering results in many areas of pure mathematics and computer science deserves detailed coverage in the Wikipedia. Irina Ermakova Expert, doctor of biology,AGP, Russia 92.36.89.114 (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Sergey Gritsenko, Professor, Belgorod State University, Russia GritsenkoS (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Doychin Tolev, Professor, Sofia University, Bulgaria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtolev (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Viktor Dodonov, Professor, University of Brasilia, Brazil 217.148.122.54 (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Anton Shutov, Associate Professor, Vladimir State University, Russia 83.220.238.135 (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Vladimir Chirskii, professor, Moscow Lomonosov state university79.165.89.130 (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Maxim Korolev, Moscow Steklov Institute, Department of Algebra and Number Theory, Russia, 77.50.5.183 (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Alexey Maevskiy, Associate Professor, Southern Federal University, Department of Algebra and Discrete Mathematics, Russia 5.149.147.160 (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Sergey Kirkorov, MediaScan Ltd., Minsk, Belarus 93.125.48.114 (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Wladyslaw Narkiewicz, retired Professor, Institute of Mathematics, Wroclaw University 78.8.103.129 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Alexei Pantchichkine, Professor, Insitut Fourier, University Grenoble 188.164.118.101 (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC) 93.80.227.63 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Sergey Pirogov, Professor, Probability Chair of Moscow State University and IITP RAS.93.80.227.63 (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Vladimir Gritsenko, Graduate student, Southern Federal University, Department of Algebra and Discrete Mathematics, Russia 77.66.153.254 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Maris Changa, Moscow State Pedagogical University, Department of Mathematics, Chair of Number Theory, Russia Maxim Goryachiy, Postgraduate student, Southern Federal University, Department of Algebra and Discrete Mathematics, Russia 95.153.163.38 (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.129.230 (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Anna Sorokina, Graduate student, Southern Federal University, Department of Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, Russia 46.41.68.44 (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC) George E. Andrews, Evan Pugh Professor of Mathematics, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA Roman Boyarinov, Associate Professor, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics, Department of mathematical analysis, Russia94.25.229.91 (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Dmitriy Khanin, Postgraduate student, Southern Federal University, Department of Algebra and Discrete Mathematics, Russia 2.93.250.81 (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Francesco Pappalardi, Associate Professor, Università Roma Tre, ITALY21:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)93.41.184.167 (talk) Mikhail Beknazarov, Associate Professor, Belgorod State University, 178.216.74.184 (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Natalia Motkina, Associate Professor, Belgorod State University, Russia82.151.111.197 (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Konstantin Dyakonov, ICREA Research Professor, ICREA and Universitat de Barcelona, Spain 188.79.234.132 (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Herbert Moeller, retired Professor, Institute of Mathematics, University of Muenster, Germany, J1nders (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have closed the above. That's not how this project works. We have a manual of style that is non-negotiable. We have formats, also non-negotiable. We have allowable and unallowable information - that might be negotiable. Otherwise. you make PROPOSED, and SOURCED plans for edits here, and if WP:CONSENSUS is that they get added, then they get added - you don't get to create some bogus petition - that's called meatpuppetry and leads to blocks for all (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be you are the only clever man here. You show great respect to other not educated people. I dare to report that petition is not discussion. However, teach us more on your fine American language to your fine American democracy. МетаСкептик12 (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say ... but I'll be happy to teach more of my fine Canadian language and current joke of a democracy :-) Wikipedia is, however, not a democratic process (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You closed the petition: what is your aim: not to let people to see that your certain wiki-administrator --- Steven Johnson --- ruin all wikipedia rules and settles personal scores with A.A. Karatsuba, since one of his pupil called him "boob" since he filled the Wikipedia the wrong statements that Gauss is the author of the Fourier Transforms? Steven Johnson claimed that on his side and against A.A. Karatsuba are "reputable" sources. The petition and people who sign it show to everybody that against Steven Johnson are much more reputable scientists. Did you close the petition since you afraid that people will see this fact? Deleting the text about A.A. Karatsuba and blocked the edition without any grounds excluding personal relation of Steven Johnson you yourself ruin Wikipedia politics.91.79.161.160 (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I closed the "petition" because that's NOT how Wikipedia works. I think I explained that quite carefully (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is that people who are into Number Theory think that this article about A.A. Karatsuba too short for such well known person in math especilally if you will compare this article with many others who can be not so well known scientist in the world. So i think it could hurts and disapoint some people who knows his works and maybe knew him personaly. I agree with idea that it is important to follow wikipedia rules and try to find compromise if possible but also i think that it is difficult to follow some rules of wikipedia because this famous person worked in Soviet Union and most information about him you can find in russian reputable sources. I think many scientists in the world will don't mind if this article will be greater than it is now even if it will include russian reputable sources (i think that is the reason this petition can be supported by many scientists). However, i don't know exactly if it possible in wikipedia rules.(i mean include russian reputable sources in article) 82.151.111.197 (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, good start. First, no matter who thinks the individual is "more important than sliced bread", propping them up is certainly not the goal of Wikipedia - flowery and promotional terms are unacceptable. The use of reliable Russian sources is fine, and well within the rules - emphasis on RELIABLE. Wikipedia is not about "famous" - it's about "notable" - and those are different things (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You called our petition --- "bogus petition" --- you are liar! All people who put their signatures are real scientists. They will be informed about your relation to their opinion and to the expression of their will.91.79.161.160 (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I called it "bogus" for a very clear and stated reason: WE DON'T DO PETITIONS ON WIKIPEDIA. You can perhaps review WP:RFC, and while you're at it review no personal attacks - calling people "liar" doesn't get you very well, and I would question your professionalism and/or education if that was truly the way you behave towards others. Wikipedia is not a democracy - we have processes to "express their will", but all edits will still need to follow Wikipedia's guidelines, pointe finale (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It's to User who speaks about Russian sources: don't make me laugh: all such problems ARE SOLVED by editing of a Wikipedia text, but not by deleting any text and blocking invalid version in two lines. Deleting --- this is a solution from the Third Reich.91.79.161.160 (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, and you already invoke Godwin's Law? A little early, isn't it? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

95.71.26.2 (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I petition the Wikipedia administration to revert the previous extensive text about Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba, unlock it and allow its further editing; confirming that A.A. Karatsuba is a prominent scientist who made essential contributions to mathematics and his pioneering results in many areas of pure mathematics and computer science deserves detailed coverage in the Wikipedia. Nico M Temme, emeritus researcher CWI Amsterdam Asymptoticus (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You already know that's not possible. The article is about a person who is notable because of his research. The extreme details of his research do not belong in the article (if they can be shown to be independantly notable, then they belong in a separate article) - then again, neither does the dates of his mount climbing (which don't belong anywhere).

Look people, the entire ARTICLE could have been deleted - but that would have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This article is still editable - but it has to be added intelligently and not merely a massive barf of theorum (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• A possible solution here would be the following: 1) Move the larger text to the userspace of one of the involved users, for example, here. 2) Read up on Wikipedia style rules in the Manual of Style. 3) Edit the article in the userspace to conform to the style rules (you can use existing excellent articles about mathematicians as examples: Alan Turing, Georg Cantor, etc). 4) Once done, move to the mainspace! Optionally, you can also have an experienced user like Bwilkins check it out before moving, to ensure that it conforms to the rules (and stays). --illythr (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Illythyr, thanks for chiming in. The difficulty with your suggestion is that, if you look at the history of this article, a part of the problem is that the complaining parties (party?) have tended to dump large changes onto the article all at once, mixing salvageable material in with material that other editors have repeatedly flagged as problematic. This makes it difficult to have productive discussions about specific edits. (Nor is it a question of "style" — the problem is the substance of the contributions.) Asking he/she/them to go off and edit someplace else and then to come back and replace this article in a large lump seems likely to only repeat the same pattern.

The suggestion of User:Stuartyeates, above, was Proposing (here on the talk page) the exact text of a relatively small change to the article in the direction you want to take it and taking on board any feedback. I think this was a good suggestion (but even then the complainant(s) had problems). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see this has been going on for several years, with essentially the same text being added, its proponents repeatedly disregarding Wikipedia rules. Unfortunate. Still, if these people opt for a proper approach one day, it might be easier for them to rework their article in their userspace. Given the years of unhelpful activity here, admin approval for moving the result to the mainspace should be mandatory in this case. --illythr (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Appeal

I would like to take the opportunity of a number of Russian-speaking editors visiting this talk page to appeal to for secondary sources related to Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba. As has been explained above, on the English language wikipedia, biographies don't cover the persons' work in great technical detail (that's covered in detail on Karatsuba algorithm, etc), but we need secondary sources that cover in detail: his life, employment history, awards, family, etc. In depth coverage in secondary sources has to be the basis of expansion of this article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

These might be useful:

• Arkhipov, G.I.; Blagodatskikh, V.I.; Chubarikov, V.N.; Lupanov, O.B.; Mishchenko, E.F.; Prokhorov, Yu.V.; Shidlovskij, A.B.; Vladimirov, V.S.; Voronin, S.M. (1998). "Anatolii Alekseevich Karatsuba (on his 60th birthday)". Russ. Math. Surv. 53 (2): 419–422. doi:10.1070/RM1998v053n02ABEH000013. ISSN 0036-0279. Zbl 0918.01027.
• Ramachandra, K. (2009). "Obituary: Anatolii Alexeevich Karatsuba (31-01-1937 to 28-09-2008)". Hardy-Ramanujan J. 32: 60–64. Zbl 1194.01128.

Spectral sequence (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

List of things named after Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba

I am a late comer here. I am proposing to create a separate page List of things named after Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba on the model of List of things named after Alexander Grothendieck. It is an well established practice in mathematics wikiproject and no controversy in it. Solomon7968 09:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds grand. Remember, however, that sourcing is required for membership on lists (List of things named after Alexander Grothendieck contains some red links). Stuartyeates (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Redlinks are actually more useful than Bluelinks because they point the true fact that wikipedia is far from perfect. other such bunch of articles include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_things_named_after_mathematicians. Solomon7968 10:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a preliminary list (with sources)? — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

(Unfortuantely) Not till now. But I think the above parties can work it out. Solomon7968 12:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Would this list be a singleton? If so, I cannot see the purpose of such a list. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed (though I proposed it}. Solomon7968 18:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To signers of the petition

I don't doubt the veracity of the petition above, it would be rather time consuming for someone to fake this.

That said, wikipedia does not work by way of petitions. Instead it works through WP:CONSENSUS, which means, if you make an edit and several other editors revert it, you have to discuss it here, on the talk page.

I looked at a previous version of this biography, and it was unreadable - full of mathematical proofs. This would be fine for a mathematics publication, but not for a biography of a mathematician in wikipedia - we need to explain why he was important, what impact his findings had, based on secondary sources that talk about him, in a language that is more or less understandable to non-experts. See the page on Cantor or Turing for examples of good biographies. There's no problem putting in biographical details like the fact that he climbed mountains, but this must be sourced, somewhere/somehow, we can't just take it on faith. There's also no problem with putting in some math, but not pages and pages of equations. If you want this text restored, you can copy it to your userspace for example, it's not lost, and perhaps an article like Key mathematical contributions of Karatsuba could be written (not sure, would ask the math wiki project about this) - but in any case, it doesn't belong in a biography, at least not such detail.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I warmly suggest to revert the previous extensive text about Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba. He made essential contributions to mathematics and computer sciences. Oto Strauch, Mathematical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.213.133.215 (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC) 93.180.50.34 (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Kochin Sergey 93.180.45.68 (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC) 193.233.212.32 (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC) We petition the Wikipedia administration to revert the previous extensive

Prof. Vladimir Aristov 193.233.212.75 (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC) text about Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba, unlock it and allow its further editing; confirming that A.A. Karatsuba is a prominent scientist who made essential contributions to mathematics and his pioneering results in many areas of pure mathematics and computer science deserves detailed coverage in the Wikipedia. 178.89.26.250 (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your post. Did you read any of this page? Did you read the bit about how wikipedia doesn't work via petitions? I don't think anyone doubts that Karatsuba is a prominent scientist, and I don't think anyone is opposed to expanding his biography - the problem was, the biography was being spammed with the same text, over and over again, without discussion or attempts to arrive at consensus. But further appeals via petition will not work. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2013

(UTC)

The spamming with the same text is not the valid cause for deleting the all other text. The specific “Canadian” terminology of administration – “bogus”, “a massive barf of theorum”, “the entire ARTICLE could have been deleted” (thank us, we didn’t kill you), “Godwin's Law” - prevents believing in the “good faith” of administration. It is the breaking WP rules and a gibe at “Russian-speaking” users and scientists (Trolling). If one mocking side has all the rights and the other has nothing, then WP:CONSENSUS is consensus of wolf and ram. МетаСкептик12 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the death threat appropriate by any stretch of the imagination? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have already said. You are well mannered and intelligent person. МетаСкептик12 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been following the whole history here, but in looking at the article, I see lots of massive additions of text, that are then reverted. Again, I'd suggest the path forward is discussion with the editors here - the article is locked so only admins can edit it anyway for a spell, so let's be constructive and use this time to frame out new sections - you could create a revised draft at Talk:Anatolii_Alexeevitch_Karatsuba/draft, and add in sourced information about his personal life and a trimmed section on his mathematical influence, written in language that non-mathematicians can understand. For example, see Euler. There are a few equations, but they aren't that complex, and they are used to illustrate broader points described in prose.

I also welcome all of the new mathematicians who have been invited to this page, welcome to wikipedia, but please, stop signing your name to a petition, that won't make any difference... the best thing is for the editors at this page to agree on revised text in the draft space I proposed above. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. But I'm not the editor of this article. And I'm afraid that a compromise is unlikely from both sides... Аs you can see above. МетаСкептик12 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The funny thing is, the random PhD population wants an expanded article, and I would expect so do administrators (I've never heard of the guy, but yeah, the more proper information the better). So, both "sides" are actually on the same side. However, administrators are here to ensure policies are followed - there's no compromise possible with that. So, rather than try to petition, or argue ... why doesn't one of these educated, intelligent people start by proposing a new paragraph right here? If they don't have the cojones to do that, they they clearly have no desire to see this article expanded, and would instead rather have philosophical whine sessions about why Wikipedia's policies prevent articles like the one we sadly saw (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Even you are not a PhD? Hmm... МетаСкептик12 (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In the English language wikipedia having a PhD gives you no extra gravitas. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Transliteration of name

VIAF (which is compiled by various national libraries and is considered authoritative in such things) has an entry for this person, which has a number of spellings of his name. Could someone who is both bi-lingual and familiar with the wikipedia policies on such things confirm that we're using the right name? It looks to me like it should be Anatolij Alekseevič Karacuba. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why so? This is the English-language Wikipedia, and the English language does not have a letter č. Spectral sequence (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the policy is Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Cyrillic)#Russian. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to point out that the page you link to is not a policy, indeed, in its preamble it even states "this is not a recommendation". It documents current usage, which appears at Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian. In that, Ч (ч) is transliterated as Ch (ch). Spectral sequence (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

We certainly shoud give both transliterations in the lede, but unless Anatolij Alekseevič beats Anatoly Alexeevitch by a wide margin, I would go with the second one as the main one (note that WP:RUS would give Anatoly Alexeyevich, which for me sounds even better). I do not see why we need partonimic in the title, which makes it Anatoly Karatsuba.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• I propose moving the article to Anatoly Karatsuba and adding redirects from all of the above suggestions to add findability of the artucle. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  Perfect.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 13:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba → Anatoly Karatsuba – Move as per consensus and as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Cyrillic)#Russian Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support as User:Ymblanter in above prediscussion. Per BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian (Oxford system) in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Cyrillic)#Russian. At the same time would note that Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Cyrillic)#Russian may need an extra line of text to note a few famous exceptions such as Tchaikovsky. Then Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Cyrillic) could be submitted to RfC for upgrade from a draft to a guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support, patronymics are unnecessary in the English Wikipedia article titles. --illythr (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment the patronymic issue is already covered by guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and abbreviated names: "Patronymics are widely used in Russia where English speakers would use a surname, thus should generally be included in the first line of the article, but are not usually used in the title of the English Wikipedia article.". Spectral sequence (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  My point exactly. --illythr (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggested replacement for the first paragraph

This is based largely upon access to the first of two references supplied above. Both appear to be behind paywalls, but I have access to the first. Russian translations of titles of works should be added where available (and ISBNs or links to catalog entries).

Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba (Russian: Анато́лий Алексе́евич Карацу́ба; Grozny, Soviet Union, January 31, 1937 — Moscow, Russia, September 28, 2008) was a Russian mathematician working in the field of analytic number theory, p-adic numbers and Dirichlet series.

For most of his student and professional life he was associated with the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University, defending a D.Sc. there entitled "The method of trigonometric sums and intermediate value theorems" in 1966. He later held a post at the Steklov Institute of Mathematics of the Academy of Sciences.

His textbook "Foundations of analytic number theory" went to two editions, 1975 and 1983.

His eponymous algorithm is a fast procedure for multiplying large numbers, is a divide and conquer algorithm subsequently surpassed in asymptotic performance by the Schönhage–Strassen algorithm.

Stuartyeates (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The last paragraph gives him too little credit; it should emphasize that this is the first known fast multiplication algorithm (a reference for this is Knuth, TAOCP vol. II, sec. 4.3.3), or equivalently the first fast convolution algorithm (in the sense of being asymptotically faster than long "grade-school" multiplication), and that the algorithm or its generalizations are still in use today for multiplication with a moderately large number of digits (thousands or less). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba (Russian: Анато́лий Алексе́евич Карацу́ба; Grozny, Soviet Union, January 31, 1937 — Moscow, Russia, September 28, 2008) was a Russian mathematician working in the field of analytic number theory, p-adic numbers and Dirichlet series.

For most of his student and professional life he was associated with the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University, defending a D.Sc. there entitled "The method of trigonometric sums and intermediate value theorems" in 1966. He later held a post at the Steklov Institute of Mathematics of the Academy of Sciences.

His textbook "Foundations of analytic number theory" went to two editions, 1975 and 1983.

His eponymous algorithm is a fast procedure for multiplying large numbers, is a divide and conquer algorithm subsequently surpassed in asymptotic performance by the Schönhage–Strassen algorithm. The Karatsuba algorithm is the earliest known divide and conquer algorithm for multiplication.

---

Better? Stuartyeates (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The expression "is ... subsequently surpassed in asymptotic performance by the Schönhage–Strassen algorithm" sounds badly. People can understand it in such a way that the Schönhage–Strassen algorithm is an independent algorithm, but this is a generalization of the A.A. Karatsuba algorithm. Of course, ANY generaization is in some sense surpass the original (that is why it is called "generalization"), but emphasizing here this a very important detail you are deliberately downplay the greatest discovery of A.A. Karatsuba.

This expression must be delted here. It can be in some form participate on the algorithms page, but not here. You do not write on the Newton page that his equations were subsequently surpassed by Einstein equations? What sense to write it?91.79.180.162 (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't write the phrase. The phrase is currently in the article and I left it alone. I rewrote to the first part of the sentence for better English. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The assertion that Schönhage–Strassen is a "generalization" of Karatsuba seems to rest, above, on the WP:FRINGE claim that Karatsuba is the source of all divide-and-conquer algorithms (and of FFTs). There is no special case or limiting case of Schönhage–Strassen that gives Karatsuba's algorithm. (Contrast with Toom-Cook, which really is a generalization of Karatsuba, in that Karatsuba's algorithm is a special case.) Nor does the original 1971 Schönhage–Strassen paper seem to describe it as a generalization of Karatsuba, although it does (of course) credit Karatsuba for proving that one could do better than Θ(N²). — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

PS. It would be easier to make progress on this article if you focused on uncontroversial improvements (e.g. better biographical information, or a brief nontechnical summary of Karatsuba's most notable work in number theory), instead of turning every editing discussion into an attempt to introduce claims that Karatsuba is the source of all divide-and-conquer algorithms etc. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Another attempt

---

Anatoly Alexeevitch Karatsuba (Russian: Анато́лий Алексе́евич Карацу́ба; Grozny, Soviet Union, January 31, 1937 — Moscow, Russia, September 28, 2008) was a Russian mathematician working in the field of analytic number theory, p-adic numbers and Dirichlet series.

For most of his student and professional life he was associated with the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University, defending a D.Sc. there entitled "The method of trigonometric sums and intermediate value theorems" in 1966. He later held a post at the Steklov Institute of Mathematics of the Academy of Sciences.

His textbook "Foundations of analytic number theory" went to two editions, 1975 and 1983.

His eponymous algorithm is a fast procedure for multiplying large numbers, is a divide and conquer algorithm subsequently surpassed in asymptotic performance by the Schönhage–Strassen algorithm. The Karatsuba algorithm is the earliest known divide and conquer algorithm for multiplication and lives on as a special case of the Toom–Cook algorithm.

---

As above, it would be preferable to have bi-lingual Russian-English title for all his works, if someone has the Russian language skills and access to the library catalogs. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

How about replacing "subsequently surpassed in asymptotic performance" by "later asymptotically improved"? Fewer sesquipedalianisms that way. It's a little vaguer but I think that's ok here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Anatoly Alexeevitch Karatsuba (Russian: Анато́лий Алексе́евич Карацу́ба; Grozny, Soviet Union, January 31, 1937 — Moscow, Russia, September 28, 2008) was a Russian mathematician working in the field of analytic number theory, p-adic numbers and Dirichlet series.

For most of his student and professional life he was associated with the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University, defending a D.Sc. there entitled "The method of trigonometric sums and intermediate value theorems" in 1966. He later held a post at the Steklov Institute of Mathematics of the Academy of Sciences.

His textbook "Foundations of analytic number theory" went to two editions, 1975 and 1983.

His eponymous algorithm is a fast procedure for multiplying large numbers, a divide and conquer algorithm later asymptotically improved by the Schönhage–Strassen algorithm. The Karatsuba algorithm is the earliest known divide and conquer algorithm for multiplication and lives on as a special case of the Toom–Cook algorithm.

---

Like that? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of the last paragraph has two verbs. Other than that it looks good to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

tweaked in line. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I already think this is a significant improvement on the existing article, so I don't know why we're continuing to tweak it here rather than putting it into the article and tweaking it there. But I think the significance of the Karatsuba algorithm is not so much that it's the first divide and conquer for multiplication, but rather that it's the first subquadratic algorithm for the problem. And although Schönhage–Strassen is better for very large numbers, there's an intermediate problem size for which Karatsuba wins over both naive methods and SS (though maybe not over Toom–Cook). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The page is protected, so we're doing the Wikipedia:Edit requests dance, which requires a consensus for every edit. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, we could iterate on additional improvements forever, so at this point my preference would be to get consensus to put your current draft into the article as is, and only then worry about making it even better. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The above change, as per David Eppstein. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Spectral sequence (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support in case it isn't obvious from my comments above. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

   Done--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Encyclopedic content and other Wikis issue

Greetings,
I agree to the comments above this version of the article did not follow Wikipedia's general guidelines like manual of style, WP:PRIMARY etc. Note, Wikipedia is not a journal.

I can see—

• the Russian article ru:Карацуба, Анатолий Алексеевич is written in same style. I think editors were trying to follow the Russian article's style here.
• same issue in Bulgarian Wikipedia: bg:Анатолий Карацуба

See these articles to get some idea on how we write articles here in English language Wikipedia—

• Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
• Srinivasa Ramanujan (note, in this article we have used mathematical formula, but, the article has no major issue)
• G. H. Hardy Tito☸Dutta 21:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Srinivasa Ramanujan is an excellent example, both because he's a non-Westerner and because there's an appropriate balance of formula. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Why this article is publicizing Schonhage + Strassen and Toom + Cook algorithms?

Why it's written at this page for A.A. Karatsuba such praise and advertising words about Schonhage and Strassen algorithm, but it isn't written that on practice just A.A. Karatsuba algorithm is the best one, it is better than Toom-Coock algorithm also, and just A.A. Karatsuba algorithm is mostly implemented and used everywhere in soft and hardware? Why it isn't written that the main idea which is in the basis of Schonhage- Strassen algorithm belong also to A.A. Karatsuba and in realty this is just generalization of A.A. Karatsuba idea? Why it isn't written that A.A. Karatsuba multiplication algorithm is the first published divide and conquer algorithm in the history of mathematics? Why Wikipedia praising inadequately Schonhage and Strassen on the page devoted to A.A. Karatsuba?31.192.137.229 (talk)

Your promotional tone makes it clear why we need to keep the article protected. And it is far from true that his is the first divide and conquer algorithm: even if we exclude FFT and binary search, quicksort was developed at the same time and place and published slightly earlier, and merge sort far predates both. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think, I should defence the first author here --- the A.A. karatsuba really did the first fast algorithm in the history of Math!\

Your tone, David, is more than "promotional" and demonstrates the same strategy of the Wikipedia administrators as before -- you are claiming wrong things: please give the references to the publications with any fast sorting algorithms before 1960. You can not call it, since first such algorithm was did and published by Tony Hoare --- Kolmogorov's student at this time in Moscow, who learned the A.A. Karatsuba method in Moscow and did on the basis of the A.A. Karatsuba idea his fast sorting algorithm (with the mane Quick-Sort or something like this). Are you really believe that more than 4 thousands years people didn't know fast methods and then at the same time two different people did the same method? Unfortunately, at present, people are not so honest as at the time of Gauss (who didn't make FFT) and Fourier. In addition, I will tell you, if you will prove the Riemann hyp. or P=NP hyp., will tell it on some seminar or conference, will publish it, and approximately at the same time, slightly later, another person --- say, John, will publish your proof with note that this is his/her report from 1948--1978--2008--..., I think, David you will have grounds to doubt that this event out of all cases of theory of probability had place really! I am sure, John von Neumann, who died in 1956 never recognized that he was an author of fast sorting algorithm. First publication with his algorithm is dated by 1963, and this publication consists from some datas which proved, this is a falsh thing, which wass done much later than in 1948!195.161.40.10 (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Knuth gives the date for von Neumann's invention of mergesort as 1945, with publication in 1948. It seems nonsense to assert that von Neumann was unaware of the nature of what he had invented. The implication that Tony Hoare might have published an idea of Karatsuba is contentious, unsupported by any evidence and probably violates WP:BLPTALK. Perhaps this page needs to be protected again. Spectral sequence (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no publications of von Neumann or anybody else from 1945 or 1948 or even later before A.A. Karatsuba made his method. What speak different people (including Knuth, if Knuth did it, I haven't seen any published Knuth words about it) about von Neumann, Gauss and others have no importance, if there are no proofs of their words --- publications. A.A. Karatsuba was the first who did fast computational algorithm. Other people, Toom, Cook, Schoenhage and Strassen, people who did FFT, used the A.A. Karatsuba idea, made certain generalizations of A.A. Karatsuba idea and nothing else. You tried to maje secret from the fact that the Toom-Cook algorithm, the Schoenhage-Strassen algorithm etc, haven't been a separate investigations but have been generalizations of the A.A. Karatsuba idea. That's really scientific theft.91.77.110.35 (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Why this article is still closed for free edition?

It's strange that free Wikipedia gives possibility to edit the article only to two Americans, who are not specialists in subject! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.192.137.229 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 23 July 2013‎

Really --- why? Why the text about A.A. Karatsuba is prepared but very subjective persons, who are not specialists in number theory or fast algorithms, who are not researchers and have a bad educational level if to judge by their presentation of first fast computational algorithm --- the A.A. Karatsuba multiplication?91.77.110.35 (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid if you continue bullshitting and resorting to personal attacks instead of addressing real points, people would start completely ignoring you. I am Russian and not American - so what?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)