The reason it’s topical for me is that I have been trying to do the research to write better Wikipedia article(s) about the subject. The one currently at https:

The reason it’s topical for me is that I have been trying to do the research to write better Wikipedia article(s) about the subject. The one currently at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguerre_transformations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguerre_transformations doesn’t do an adequate job with the basics IMO. I gathered a long list of resources at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laguerre_transformations#List_of_references https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laguerre_transformations#... (As commonly happens, I am currently a bit stuck on making a bunch of diagrams...) This is not controversial, but it is moderately obscure. (But not that obscure.) * * * I don’t have any particular “expectation”. I am just disappointed that the current versions of these tools do not give any indication about their level of certainty. I have asked a wide range of questions that prompted responses which were substantially bullshit. But if I hadn’t followed up might have seemed plausible enough. Stuff like asking for translations of material written in Latin, asking about word etymologies, asking about court cases, asking for summaries of famous old books, ... I have had a few conversations like: “Who discovered thing A” “It was X, who ....” “wasn’t it Y?” “Yes I am sorry. I was incorrect. It was Y, who ...” “Wasn’t it actually Z?” “Yes I am sorry. I was incorrect. It was Z, who ...” If you try you can get it to make up nonsense about a whole string of false discoverers. It would be better if it instead say “I have no idea about the precise answer, but people P and Q were working on similar topics around that time” or whatever.