Talk:Cox–Zucker machine

Untitled

And what does it do; why is it important?

Isn't it obvious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.188.58 (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This entry is completely bogus. Just say "Cox-Zucker" out loud and you'll understand why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.22.195 (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is, in fact, real; the notability comes mostly from the fact that people will come looking to see if it is or not. It would be nice if a mathematician could explain it though. KarlM (talk) 08:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was bogus too, but click on the DOI in the reference list and you can see the published paper. Glorious, and as KarlM says, encyclopedic. Ngio (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's real, all right - Mr. Cox is my father, and he wrote the paper with Mr. Zucker specifically because it would be the "Cox-Zucker" paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.133.105 (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Cox is the best research lecturers I have had. Askateth (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Saying it out loud wasn't enough for me—I had to send myself a CandyGram of it, then choreograph a descriptive dance. – AndyFielding (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The second part is pronounced tsooker and is German for sugar. 24.206.66.56 (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That would likely be true if Zucker were German, but he was American, from NYC, so one can guess how he pronounced it but without sources it's hard to know for sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

See Also

I see no reason to remove the see also section, given the joking nature of this algorithm. It wouldn't belong in any of those other pages, but it would in this one. Is there a precedent for this? TheHiker25 (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Most of these entries were not deliberately named as a homophobic or sexist joke; they were merely named in the standard way mathematical things are often named, after the surname of a mathematician who may have had something to do with their formulation. As such, this section comes across as a juvenile way of attacking people by saying that they have funny names, rather than as serving any encyclopedic purpose. I think it should be removed. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The way I see it, referencing the other entries has no encyclopedic content. It cheapens this article. At worst, the See Also section here is actually functioning as oblique commentary in a sort of original research kind of way, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Whether "Cox ring" or "Tits group" should be referenced from here is hardly a neutral, encyclopedic opinion to be expressing via metadata commentary. JordiGH (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)