Talk:Tarski's exponential function problem

This article is rated Start-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 Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Currently there is a section describing a "recent" approach of a workaround. Neither is this recent nor anywhere on the level that it actually is a workaround. it simply advertises a 10 page long paper. I would be in favour of removing this. Many other "workarounds" that don't really help in understanding the problem could also be added otherwise. Altarbasenstickfreie (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree this section is bad as written.

My preference is, I think, opposite yours: salvage the section into some kind of "Extensions" or "Partial results" section explaining this and other 'workarounds'.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the feedback @CRGreathouse. I took some time to read the mentioned article, and it does actually not have anything to do with Tarski's exponential function problem or partial results to this end. Only once on page 315 of the article, it is mentioned that the exponential function is one particular function that the main result applies to. But in general it is about real analytic functions. So I do not see it as any attempt to present a workaround for Tarski's exponential function problem, which is not even mentioned in the article. Rather it is an extension of decidability of real closed fields.

I find the problem interesting and look for some articles that actually want to contribute in solving it. For now, I suggest to delete the section "Workaround" and will do so now. Please just reverse the change if you think that it should stay. Altarbasenstickfreie (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That sounds good — thanks for the careful attention here. I agree that decidability of real closed fields is a better fit. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The most recent edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tarski's%20exponential%20function%20problem&diff=1240187038&oldid=1240186106) fixed all the mathematical formatting, but in doing so it (presumably accidentally) removed the multiplication symbol from the signature of the language of ordered rings.

I tried to revert that part myself, but apparently the Unicode multiplication dot used in older versions of the article breaks the formatting used in this new version, so it needs to be fixed by someone who knows more about Wikipedia's math formatting.

(While we're at it, isn't the language of ordered rings usually described as using a non-strict order, rather than a strict one?) —~2026-32088-01 (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC) ~2026-32088-01 (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply