Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Hamming

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Richard Hamming[edit]

(
)

The color of each pixel is the Hamming distance between the binary representations of its x and y coordinates, modulo 16, in the 16-color system.

Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 (talk) at 22:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC).

I've taken the liberty of striking the original hook and correcting it below -- clarifying the definition of Hamming dist (and I've corrected it in the article, too), and accommodating the fact that just as Hilbert didn't use the term Hilbert space, Hamming didn't use the term Hamming distance.

ALT2 ... that Richard Hamming introduced what is now called the Hamming distance (illustrated), the number of positions by which two code words differ?

Give me any trouble on this and I'll play the expert card. EEng (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Is ALT1 "correct"? I find it punchier, although a short explanation of what EEC is would be useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
ALT1 doesn't go with the image though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I wish I could remember what it was, but I recall a maths lecture where something came up and the lecturer said: "he actually did name this after himself". Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Re ALT1, there are too many earlier systems which, arguably, provided forward error correction of one sort or another -- if not systematically -- for ALT1 not to attract criticism. I modestly recommend ALT2. EEng (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Good to go on ALT2, based on recent GA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • ALT2 isn't quite right; the "in which by which" is one which too many. The DYK approval not only missed this but apparently relies entirely on the GA review, even for the hook and its sourcing, which GA naturally doesn't cover. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    EEng's grammatical error corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't it have corrected itself? I'd included extra words for redundancy. EEng (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Lol! New review required. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This recently promoted GA qualifies for DYK on the date and length criteria. The hook fact for ALT2 is supported by an inline citation. The article is neutral and I did not detect any copyright issues. I was impressed by the clarity of the prose when explaining complex concepts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Richard_Hamming&oldid=632059884"