Talk:Tuple

Proposal for a Name for Tuples with a Length of Googol: Googuple

Hello everyone.

I am writing to propose a new term for tuples that have a length of googol (10^100) elements. At present, there is no widely recognized name for such a tuple. I would like to suggest the term "Googuple" as a potential candidate.

While "tuple of size googol" or "googol-tuple" are commonly used terms for this concept, I believe that "Googuple" would be a more concise and memorable term. Moreover, it would help prevent confusion between the number googol and the tuple of googol length.

Although "Googuple" is not yet an established term in the mathematical or computing communities, I propose it as a clear and concise alternative to the current terms in use. I invite your feedback on whether "Googuple" has merit as a term for tuples of length googol. Jossy010 (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to invent new terms. See WP:NOTFORUM.  Dr Greg  talk  14:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Names for tuples of specific lengths

This section is unsourced. Even if it would be sourced it would not belong to this article, per WP:DICT. Although this could suffices to delete this section, these are not the main reason for deleting the section.

The article is about a mathematical concept called a "tuple". Therefore, for appearing in the section, a word must be commonly used to denote a mathematical tuple. This not the case here. Most of the names are not commonly used, and most of those that are commonly used are not used for refering to a mathematical tuple. For example, a quartet is not a tuple, but a musical group. Also, the words with the suffixe "uple" that are not created specifically for this article refer generally to multiples rather to tuples. The few words that are used for tuples, either appear already in the lead (singleton, ordered pair), or are those with the suffixe "plet" (triplet, quadruplet, etc). They are used for tuples in French, but I am not certain that they have exactly the same meaning in English. If they have, it is easy to add them in a single sentence in the lead. No need of a specific section.

So, this section is not worth for this article. It is also very confusing, as presenting as synonyms words that are far to be synonyms.

As all what precedes is based on common sense and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, restoring this section requires to be strongly motivated here. D.Lazard (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Officially Wikipedia Has No other tuple list so for people to learn so either add a multiple list or revert to my version ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CD:C881:38C0:399F:6C25:28F4:ED10 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need such a list. You can host it on your personal website or social media account. quattuordecuple, sexvigintuple, milluple, ronnuple, googuple, etc. are somewhere between vanishingly obscure and just made up. –jacobolus (t) 01:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

For now, I consider it sufficient just to delete the section which is unsourced for 8 months. If somebody comes up with a reliable source, the discussion here may be resumed. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur. "Googuple" was invented in the section immediately above, for heaven's sake. Wikipedia is not the place to deposit things somebody made up one day. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

As consensus appears to be running against this section, and the IP has been blocked, I removed the section again. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Having had a look at what was being put in I agree it doesn't belong. In fact I think 'Crush Kill Destroy!" from Lost in Space would about describe my feelings. :-) NadVolum (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with D.Lazard's argument above. In addition that table significantly impaired the readability/visual appearance of the article, Flooding the screen directly after the lead with completely marginal information, the encyclopedic value of which seems rather dubious at best.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Tuples are naturally infinite

I prolonged definition of tuple from being function of natural number (as set) (former status) to function of ordinal number as set. I accordance with level 5 vital article status, I placed this small enhancement directly to the page. However, I triggered series of negative responses from particular mathematicians. The problem is that we can't reach consensus in such a clear case, in my view. Why infinite tuple concept doesn't belong to Tuple page? Of course, if we accept the infinite tuple concept in Tuple page, another question immediately occurs: why not define finite and infinite tuple directly in one definition, if it is simply possible and it means just change of one word, keeping all essentials unchanged and of the same meaning. Mu suggestion is to accept that tuple is function of ordinal number as set. It is simple and fully explaining the concept of tuple together with simple implication of count of elements of tuple and basic properties. Then we say finite tuple or infinite tuple or simply tuple if we don't rely or particular properties. Please, argue if you can at this place, to make us able to reach consensus. Rbrane7 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, again, again, for being acceptable in Wikipedia, it must exist in the literature, and it is to you to provide evidence of such an existence. D.Lazard (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary. Level 5 article is to be bold in new concepts. This is not new just think little wider. I don't know if it is used in written literature, usually tuples are finite, it is for sure used in spoken mathematics. The concept of tuple is opened. In functions of infinite count of parameters, it is naturally inherent. I will suggest compromise update of the page. We will see if it's acceptable for you. But try to be less offensive against slightly new concepts in wiki. Try to be more like ok it is correct prolongation so let's accept it somehow, then no it doesn't copy that what has been defined. You started the dispute by enforcing religious strictness not suitable for this page, not me. Rbrane7 (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

By the way, multiplet term has been stolen :) by physics. I don't think that mathematics doesn't use it in more general context. Multiplet and tuple have very equal meaning in solely mathematical context, in my understanding. I'd like to choose latin based term for very general concepts. Polynomial suffers similar problem. It is finite by definition. The difference from tuple is, that infinite polynomial significantly changes subsequent properties related to polynomial, while infinite tuple changes nothing in terms of tuple. Of course, it changes subsequent topics relying of tuple. But it doesn't mean that infinite tuple concept doesn't exist and that it shouldn't be noted on tuple page of wiki. Rbrane7 (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here "to be bold in new concepts". See WP:NOR. Wikipedia articles on academic topics should represent the mainstream view of those topics in the academic literature. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikipedia is not yours. Plus you are false, look at definition of level 5 article. Rbrane7 (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to improve every article whichever level it has. However, what you think to be an improvement can be a disimprovement for Wikipedia. The only juge for this is a consensus of editors or the output of a WP:dispute resolution. Here, you have several editors against you, and none who support your edits. So, there is no hope for a consensus in your favor. Saying "you are false" will definitely be of no help. D.Lazard (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I sill didn't see any rational argument against potentially infinite tuple. It has no sense to restrict it to finite concept. Hopefully, you can accept, that infinite cartesian product is a valid concept. Can you? It is spoken in Axiom of choice on wiki itself and is spoken in many set theory papers and books. Cartesian product of an arbitrary large file of sets exists in set theory. And what is an element of Cartesian product? I believe we call it tuple. It would be better if we reconcile pear to pear. Inherently well ordered set is also a tuple, specific one but tuple. No more no less. It is not mathematically rational battle, what is happening here.

I'm not blocked any more after an appeal, according to what I see. But better is to reconcile on tuple as general as it essentially is. Rbrane7 (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm waiting for today for your more willing response towards peer to peer reconciliation. If you do not respond or respond with no will to move forward, I will start dispute resolution. I hope it is not necessary and lengthy procedure. Therefore I prefer to avoid it. Best. Rbrane7 (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

You should provide some reliable source, or you have no chance in dispute resolution, see (again) WP:NOR. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

We will see in dispute resolution. Up to now I saw no argument against infinity tuple concept other than 'show external resources'. No idea just rigidity against wider definition. However the dispute should be not about external resources but about arguments for and against. And I see strong argument for having concept of infinity tuple on tuple page, if not as part of definition of tuple, then at least as part of notation of possibility to define infinite tuple. Axiom of choice leads directly to definition of infinite Cartesian product and so to think of infinite tuple as well. So mathematician educated in Set theory based on ZF or ZFC is naturally thinking in terms like infinite tuple. I'm starting dispute resolution. Rbrane7 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment to Infinite tuple concept

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Speedy close. In addition to the last three posts below, I notice immediately that the statement is non-neutral, lengthy, and possibly too complicated for a non-mathematician to follow. In view of the latter, a direct request at WT:MATH would have been a better approach than an RfC which pulls in varied people from across the community. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

---

I would like to ask comments with argumentation for or against infinite tuple concept, by which I call a presence of Infinite Tuple on Tuple page.

The problem was discussed between a couple of mathematicians with no argumentation against the concept other than missing external citations. I think there should rather be discussion about arguments in general instead of just resources. The argumentation for the concept is based on axioms of Set theory namely ZFC and mainly Axiom of choice.

The opponents of the concept already attempted to ban me and separate me from editing of English Wiki. I was unbanned then, but I don't see reasonable to follow aggressive bilateral disputation with undoing actions of each other. So, I'm asking third party experts form participation in dispute.

My opinion is, that infinite tuple is inherently here, regardless how we call it. Therefore, we should not try to find different term, but rather we should note it on the tuple page. Argumentation for can be most simply based on Axiom of choice of ZFC, which effectively defines infinite Cartesian product, which is quoted on its wiki page. If we have infinite Cartesian product, which is apparently true, then I believe, we should have defined also infinite Tuple. We define the tuple most simply as function of natural number (as set (mathematics)). Infinite tuple is then simply function of ordinal number (as set (mathematics)).

So, please, give me independent opinion to my conclusions and relevancy of noting infinite Tuple on tuple page.

I already asked my colleague from studies on Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University for an opinion. He said, that he intuitively understood Tuple as finite but the presence of infinite Tuple on tuple page counts logical and needed.

It is so tiny problem, or no problem at all, that I'm surprised, that it triggered so much animosity. It should have been solved on talk page of the topic and it was attempted by my side. However, no compromise was reached there. Rbrane7 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The concept that Rbrane7 calls "infinite tuple" is usually called "(infinite) sequence", and we have the article Sequence about this concept. In the previous discussions, Rbrane7 never provided any reason for this change of name nor any source for the name "infinite tuple". Also, Rbrane7's request implies a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. To editor Rbrane7: Please explain how your suggestion can be implemented in respect to Wikipedia rules, namely WP:OR for the change of name from sequence to "infinite tuple" and WP:REDUNDANTFORK for the tentative of duplicating here the content of Sequence. D.Lazard (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Improperly formed Rfc – Rbrane7, please withdraw this Rfc as it is improperly formed. Ideally, you should have a brief statement in the form of a question that can be ideally answered yes-or-no, or with a small number of multiple-choice options that you provide. Second, everything you have stated above in your ramblings is WP:Original research, and it's a perversion of the Rfc process to use it as an end-run around failing to achieve any consensus in previous discussion; this is not what an Rfc is for. Please withdraw it by removing the {{Rfc}} template at the top of this section. If you can write a properly formed Rfc that complies with WP:RFC, you can start another Rfc in a new section below this one. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Speedy close – the issue appears to be with referencing requirements rather than an actual content dispute. I would second Mathglot's request above that you withdraw the RFC, and ask that you not open a new one until you have read and understand WP:NOR and WP:V, and are able to provide references to support your position. Tollens (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy close tendentious RFC by an editor who has had multiple people try to explain Wikipedia's no-original-research and verification policies, has blown them all off, and despite a clear consensus against their position has initiated a process that could only succeed with a consensus for the position. If this continues, a WP:NOTHERE block may be necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Python

Define tuple in python 2409:40F2:C:832A:83B:77FF:FE05:6DAD (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

On the infinite tuple

It's clear that this is a contentious issue as seen above, so I will do my best to be as clear as possible.

A basic notion of an "infinite tuple" is noted by several authors that I could find:

• In Linear Algebra Done Right, Axler defines the vector space ${\boldsymbol {F}}^{n}$ (of a given field ${\boldsymbol {F}}$) as a "list" of n elements from ${\boldsymbol {F}}$ (page ) and defines notes that what he refers to as a "list" many mathematicians refer to as a tuple (p.5-6). Then later defines ${\boldsymbol {F}}^{\boldsymbol {\infty }}$ as a field over a kind of infinite tuple (p.13).
• In Rings, Fields, and Vector Spaces, Sethuraman explicitly uses the term "Infinite tuple": (p. 66)

"Similarly, for any field ${\boldsymbol {F}}$, let ${\boldsymbol {F}}^{\boldsymbol {\infty }}$ denote the set of all infinite-tuples $(a_{0},a_{1},a_{2},...)$, where the $a_{i}$ are in ${\boldsymbol {F}}$."

• And user @Rbrane7 was not being unreasonable in their mention of the Axiom of Choice, as even Terrence Tao uses the term "infinite tuple" in his book Analysis I, Remark 8.4.3, talking about the AoC. (p.200)

However, in many cases, tuples are defined by the recursive definition $(x_{0},x_{1},...x_{n})=((x_{0},x_{1},...x_{n-1}),x_{n})$, with some pre-defined definition of an ordered pair, which certainly doesn't imply the existence of an infinite tuple. So it seems many authors use will use "n-tuple" to mean a, specifically, finite, ordered list.

That said, there certainly does seem to be uses of an "infinite tuple" in literature. For this reason, I will be removing the mentions in the lead that a tuple must be finite. However, I will leave further edits of how or even if to include infinite tuples in the article to other editors. Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Since the most common convention is that a tuple is finite, you must not change that. So, I reverted your edit. However, I have added the fact that "infinite tuple" is sometimes used for "infinite sequence". D.Lazard (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

A few notes:

• While some authors explicitly say that a tuple must be finite, the vast majority of what I've looked through don't make any mention at all. And other sources that don't attempt to define it seem to use the term "n-tuple" to note that a tuple in question is finite. So, unless there's been a survey among mathematicians asking their opinion that we could source, I don't know if I agree that the most common convention is that "tuple", in the general sense, must be finite.
• This makes the introduction clunky less accessible to many readers. The average reader of this article is likely going to be a student who learned the word from Python, or a curious reader who only knows about ordered pairs and is wondering about higher-ordered tuples. "Finite" is not a word commonly used outside of mathematics circles. So the explicit mention that tuples must be finite is both confusing and unnecessary for most readers.
• Your assertion about infinite tuples is, at best, confusing, and at worst, outright wrong. If one is defining a tuple as a kind of sequence (as defined in the article linked), then one should explain how a tuple is different from a sequence. Going through that article, they make no such distinction. And, in fact, at one point it says: "A sequence of a finite length n is also called an n-tuple". If you wish to use the terms as if they are different, you should explain how they are different. Then, further, Tao does not seem to use "sequence" and "tuple" interchangeably, and keeps these terms separate, even when defining infinite tuples. So, at least in the case of Tao, your assertion is not true. Farkle Griffen (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Lazard, why to push people to thinking that there is a kind of equivalence of sequence and tuple. We know the difference. You call sequence, correctly, an infinite tuple. But that is not all. Sequence basically means collection of elements of the same type related together by some relationship. So that it makes sense, for example, to speak about the limit etc. While tuple is collection of unrelated elements of potentially different types. Sequence is also tuple but tuple is not a sequence without additional constraint. Most simply, tuple is a set of properties. (Where property is a pair of type, defining set of values, and determinative set, defining its unique position.) We have infinite sets by default ...

If you tel that sequence is infinite tuple then you apparently have defined term infinite tuple. And as you know the difference between sequence and tuple, you apparently know, that infinite tuple is reasonable term and has definition.

At second, please, don’t use modality “must” within wikipedia content, if you respect others to have opinion and the right to edit wikipedia content. From what I have noticed yet, you are bound somehow to the tuple topic on wikipedia. But there is apparently no consensus on tuple as mandatory finite, and hardly can be. Because either finite or infinite tuple naturally comes from ZF axiomatics. If we add axiom of choice, which is very common, it makes sense speaking about infinite Cartesian product. I believe you allow us to speak about infinite Cartesian product. Axiom of choice (AC) itself is also, on wikipedia, formulated in terms of : Cartesian product of arbitrary set of nonempty sets is nonempty. Axiom of choice concern is infinite set, because for a finite sets AC is implied by ZF axiomatic itself. Rbrane7 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

We should not argument for oversimplification because of level of degree of reader on wikipedia. We should give the best and most complete understanding to other people who are concerned. There is apparently good intention to explain term, here tuple, most simply and intuitively. But there is no reason why to hide people from full meaning of the term, tuple, how it is treated among the high educated mathematicians. The high level definition can be quoted in separate paragraph so that fast reading of article gives brief and mostly sufficient understanding. And high level definition gives those who ask deep understanding full scale definition.

I’m afraid of the crux of disagreement. Unfortunately, in original version of article Tuple, which I found 9 months ago and which I corrected with good will, there is a mention that one of difference between tuple and set is that set can be infinite and tuple not.

This is very unhappy conclusion. It would be great success of our cooperation if we extract that conclusion from the article. Because insisting on such a conclusion digs trench between abstract modern mathematics and simplified mathematics applied in the article. If we insist on it, we have disabled term tuple for infinite case. And we have to order all mathematicians to different term for infinite tuple. But no mathematician cares for what is enforced by wikipedia. Better is to abandon the finite assertion and keep silence for simplified content. And clarify the details in higher level content of article. That keeps mathematical world and simplified mathematical world consistent. Rbrane7 (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)