Talk:Algebraic normal form

Merge proposal

I propose merging Zhegalkin polynomial into Algebraic normal form as these describe the same concept and the articles indicate that.Caralice (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Merge – I also propose merging Reed–Muller expansion into Algebraic normal form, if truly they describe the same concept as the article indicates. 47.229.123.105 (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Merge all into Normal form (Boolean algebra). D.Lazard (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Merge the 3, not all 4 There is plenty of material here for the merged article. The normal form article should only summarize. --Macrakis (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Reverted page move

I was surprised to see that D.Lazard's move of the page to Algebraic normal form (Boolean algebra) was reverted, with no comment left on the talk page. I agree with his edit summary: the current title absolutely is confusing, and it did in fact mislead me into expecting an article about algebra.

In my opinion, page titles need disambiguating not only from those of other articles (which the reader might not even know exist), but also from whatever meaning a casual reader is likely to get from taking the words of the title at face value.

I have no desire to get into the soul-destroying process of making a move request, and given the merge discussion that's going on in another section it might be too soon to specify the destination title, but I do find it perverse to move a page back from a more helpful title to a less helpful one. Musiconeologist (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that "Algebraic Normal Form" is not self-explanatory, but it's true that the parentheses are only supposed to be used where there are other things of the same name. It is the Short Description which should clarify the field. That said, our current SD is too technical. It should be something like "Representation of Boolean function" or perhaps Representation of Boolean function using XOR". Macrakis (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I see in WP:TITLE: The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. This is enforced by the principle of least astonishment. On the other hand, I do not know any policy or guideline that asserts that parentheses in titles are forbidden when the title without parentheses does not exists.

In any case, the title that have added was only provisional, before a decision for the merge. IMO, the right title, after the above merge, is Boolean polynomial. D.Lazard (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Macrakis So in fact, in situations like this the parentheses themselves can be misleading to someone who's aware of the convention, since they create the false impression that another article must exist that doesn't? I can go along with that argument from a documentation design point of view. It's the principle of representing the same type of information in the same way. Musiconeologist (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)