Hi, regarding your editing Haggstrom's name in FKG inequality, if you change a reference like that, you also have to change the citations pointing to it, since it is now broken. This might be a disadvantage of the method of citation used there, but in a math article I prefer this to footnotes... And, by the way, the o also needs an umlaut in his name, ström. --GaborPete (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Rhombic dodecahedron

edit

I reverted this from Rhombic dodecahedron:

The result of identifying 'geometrically opposite' vertices in the graph given by the edges of the dodecahedron is the Petersen graph.

I think this is true for the regular dodecahedron which has 20 vertices. The peterson graph has 10 nodes, so couldn't be related to the (14 vertex) rhombic dodecahedron by identifying opposites together. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply


You're right - I've added it to the right place now. Yuide (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Now I reaIized it's not even true. Removed. So much for that edit :p Yuide (talk) 11:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

RSK

edit

Hi Yuide, Thanks for your contribution to the article on RSK. If you look at the context in which you added the material, though, you'll see that it's in the section on symmetric matrices, while most of the facts you mention are about the different special case of permutation matrices; also, much of what you've added there is already in the section on the permutation case, and/or in the related article Robinson-Schensted correspondence. Perhaps you could try to reorganize your addition in a way that reflects this? Thanks! All the best, JBL (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Yuide, If I'm reading the change log correctly, you assert that the descent set of a word is the same as that of its Q-tableau under RSK. Do you have a reference for that fact? It is easy to prove with the dual Knuth moves, for instance, but I'd like to know who first noticed it. I haven't been able to find it stated explicitly in the literature anywhere other than here. (As it happens I need this reference for a paper I'm writing, which is why I noticed - but it would be good to have on here, too). Best, Speedymollusc (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm moderately confident that it's in Ch7 of Stanley's EC2. --JBL (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Aha! You are right. It is Lemma 7.23.1 of EC2. It is apparently due originally to Schutzenberger and independently rediscovered by Foulkes, according to the remarks on p.404. Thanks! Speedymollusc (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have apparently been logged off for some time. I made the move now. I found the descent set property in an appendix in Björner and Brentis book. Yuide (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your account will be renamed

edit

04:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)