Talk:Algebraic character

Requested move 5 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that Algebraic character be renamed and moved to Formal character.

result:
Not moved. See below enough opposition and ambivalence for a consensus to maintain the status quo. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 13:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links: current log • target log • direct move

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Algebraic character → Formal character – The "formal character" seems more standard terminology. Fulton and Harris, Representation theory and V. Kac, Infinite dimensional Lie algebras, both use the term "formal character". The term is also more in line with the term "formal distribution" (which doesn't exist yet but should someday). Taku (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 19:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. SITH (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: Jerm, it might be worth prodding the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics for input on this, of course, in a neutral fashion. Just so we get some input. SITH (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion resolved

StraussInTheHouse I don’t know why you’re telling me. I’m not the only one who put a relisting here. And instead of telling others what should also be done, you should make it a priority for yourself since you think it’s recommended to send a notice to a WikiProject. And In your time notifying me, you could’ve sent a notification to WikiProject Mathematics because I’m certainly not doing it. Even now when you receive this message, you still didn’t send a notice to WikiProject Mathematics so it must not be that important. And why didn’t you just message me on my talk page if your message was directed to me? Jerm (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerm, I meant to ping the nominator, TakuyaMurata, my apologies. Had you been the nominator I still stand by my decision to advise the nominator to leave the message as opposed to leaving it myself because to remain uninvolved it's best for the nominator to make an appropriate notification. There's no need for the diatribe.

SITH (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StraussInTheHouse It's all good. I'm going to collapse this discussion now. You should correct your original ping though. Jerm (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerm , StraussInTheHouse

Done Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 18:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am ambivalent, because–as a non-math expert–"formal" sounds like something more prone to non-mathematical meanings. "Algebraic" leaves no doubt that we're talking about a mathematical term. I suppose "Formal algebraic character" would just be inventing a phrase. BD2412 T 17:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the first hit I got in Google Books was: D. Ihde, ‎Richard M. Zaner, Dialogues in Phenomenology (2012), p. 111: "What is a formal character, such that all its visible representations should be in principle completely adequate to it? A formal character is nothing but a family of closely resembling sensuous characters". This strikes me as evidence that the phrase "formal character" could have other meanings in other fields. BD2412 T 17:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It’s not clear to me which is more common. At least in the parts of representation theory close to number theory, "algebraic character" is fairly common. Examples of some more recent papers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. But "algebraic character" often means a 1-dimensional algebraic representation or a 1-dimensional representation on the level of Lie algebras rather than the definition given in this article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meh and as such Oppose - I can see nothing to recommend either name over the other, therefore keep it the same. FOARP (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.