User talk:D.Lazard

Safe Primes, in RSA

Ok, let's try to discuss here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RSA_(cryptosystem)#Safe_Primes,_in_RSA_Key_Generation No "reliable sources" are needed here. Here you just need to think with your own head. This is math. In any case, I do not owe you anything, and I do not demand anything from you.

Coordinate Systems and Analytic Geometry

Moved to Talk:Cartesian coordinate system

 – Nothing personal in this discussion

Stop Pagiarism

Idiot D.Lazard, someone else's contribution is not your wife's *** that anybody can nail it without proper reference. Stop PLAGIARISM, you fu***** idiot. 2409:4081:2B14:293D:0:0:4309:9504 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Undo of category changes

Hi, I saw that you had reverted a number of category revisions due to unexplained changes. Apologies if the intentions weren't clear. I had mistakenly assumed it would be evident looking at the categories.

The pages that I removed from the category Algebra were removed because they were specific to subtopics of Algebra and in many cases were already part of a subcategory. As such, they did not seem to belong at the top level of the Algebra category with general algebra topics. Chrisdmiddleton (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

In many cases, you have replaced category:algebra with category:abstract algebra. In most of them, the article does not belong to abstract algebra ("abstact algebra" is either the study of algebraic structures for themselves or the name of college courses). As there are specific subcategories for the main algebraic structures, very few articles should belong directly to category:abstract algebra. The same is true for category:abstract algebra, and this mean, that, if you want a more accurate categorization, you must not replace category:algebra with category:abstract algebra, but with a more specific category.

"Unexplained change" is a polite way to say that I disagree with the change. In any case, if you disagree with the reverts, per WP:BRD, you must not discuss them here, but either on the talk page of the edited article or at WT:WPM. D.Lazard (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Foundations of mathematics & mathematical logic

I have just been reading your recent edits to the article Foundations of mathematics. Most of it is fine, but I'm not happy about one of your statements. The section Foundations of mathematics#Foundational crisis starts out by telling us that the foundational crisis of mathematics arose at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, and a little later it tells us (in your words) that "These problems were also studied by mathematicians, and this led to a new area of mathematics, mathematical logic". Certainly it led to radically new approaches to mathematical logic, but mathematical logic existed before then; the works of George Boole and then Augustus De Morgan come to mind, for example. JBW (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)