# Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hadamard theorem"

Moved to here from Talk:EoM:This_project#Hadamard theorem --Ulf Rehmann 17:24, 20 October 2012 (CEST):

Hadamard theorem was quite a mess, so I fixed it up with TeX, referencing, and put the sections in more logical places. It seems like it would be better split up into different articles for each of the different theorems, however. If people agree, can this be done/can I do it myself? TBloom 10:05, 21 April 2012 (CEST)

As for me, yes, it would be better, and yes, you can do it yourself. :-) --Boris Tsirelson 11:09, 21 April 2012 (CEST)
On the other hand, having all results on the same page may spare the reader from unnecessary clicking. Two-three screenfuls of text is an affordable size, not necessitating further splitting. Sergei Yakovenko 07:58, 22 April 2012 (CEST)

I'm also not sure how to label equations - Wikipedia suggests NumBlk but the package seems to be missing. TBloom 10:09, 21 April 2012 (CEST)

But we have MathJax! See here for an example. --Boris Tsirelson 11:09, 21 April 2012 (CEST)

In the section on determinants, shouldn't the $\mu$s and $\nu$s be subscripted?, i.e. $$a_{\mu_1}\overline{a}_{\nu_1}+\cdots +a_{\mu_n}\overline{a}_{\nu_n}=0$$

No; they are entries of a matrix, so for example $a_{\mu 1}$ denotes the element in the $\mu$-th row and 1st column. TBloom 12:36, 22 April 2012 (CEST)
Thanks for the clarification Thomas. I see that the matrix element notation is somewhat inconsistent across EoM, one sees both $a_{i j}$ and $a_{i,j}$. --Jjg 17:26, 22 April 2012 (CEST)
Consistency seems like an issue with a lot of notation across EoM; should there be some house style sheet for consistency? At least by subject area. TBloom 18:35, 22 April 2012 (CEST)
How to Cite This Entry: