Talk:Rogers–Ramanujan identities
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
A Framework for the Identities: pov
[edit]In addition to probably having original research, the section "A Framework for the Identities" does not seem to be written from a neutral point of view. The discussion of authorship in that section is also far outside the mainstream of mathematical style: authors are typically presumed to have contributed equally.
Comment by Garfield Garfield
[edit]I think there was an article in Nature. I will try to find it. It is certainly not original research. Followup: The Nature Index doesn't show it. I saw it somewhere!
- I removed the section as original research. As apparent from [1], the paper isn't even published yet, so there are no reliable sources for this, only a press release from Emory. When reliable sources appear, we can consider adding it back in in a neutral fashion. --Mark viking (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Continued Fraction
[edit]Should be , see Rogers–Ramanujan continued fraction.--Claude J (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
They should be written out in full
[edit]At the beginning of this article, these beautiful identities should be written out in full, without the Pochhammer symbols.
Later in the article or next, it can be stated and shown that the identities can be written more compactly with the Pochhammer symbols.
But there is no reason for the only statements of the identities in this article to be written in such a compact form that it obscures their content for most readers.2600:1700:E1C0:F340:C41B:52B:240D:B735 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)