Talk:Cap set

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Low‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Added new maximum lower bound as found by Tyrrell (2022), unsure how to cite paper as it is on arxiv and doesn't appear to have a DOI, added arxiv code under DOI to allow others to be able to fix the mistake 192.76.8.72 (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The correct parameter is |arxiv=. But we often avoid citing arxiv preprints until there is confirmation from other sources or a peer-reviewed publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's since been published in Discrete Analysis; I updated the citation. Double sharp (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated the citation to correctly show the Arxiv preprint. OchenCunningBaldrick (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Various sources e.g. [1], [2] and [3] have reported a breakthrough using large language models to optimise solution bounds, specifically on cap sets of the Set game with 8 dimensions.

Perhaps this article should mention it. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "Mutually disjoint cap sets" section is about "spaces of up to size AG(4,3)". But the notation "AG(4,3)" is never defined or explained. This renders the entire section completely unintelligible except to experts. We should remove this section, unless someone can add an explanation of what that means. StormWillLaugh (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means the affine geometry of dimension four over a finite field of order three, the same thing denoted elsewhere in the article as ${\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} _{3}^{4}}$. If this is correct, the fix is to use the same notation as the rest of the article, not to remove the section. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix it? I agree that we much prefer that. StormWillLaugh (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the notation you are suggesting is explained at first use, with wikilinks for more info. So it is far better. StormWillLaugh (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]