Wikipedia

Talk:Number theory: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Number theory/Archive 1) (bot
(13 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{VitalWikiProject article|level=3|topic=Mathematics|classpriority=Btop}}
{{WikiProject Numbers|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Mathematics|class=B|frequentlyviewed=yes|field=Number theory|vital=Y|priority=top}}
}}
{{FailedGA|02:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)|topic=Mathematics and mathematicians|page=1}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 20:
 
PS. Some of those initial patterns do have number-theoretical significance, but discussing that involves algebraic number theory and would probably take us too far afield. [[User:Garald|Garald]] ([[User talk:Garald|talk]]) 11:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 
== Specialists, please edit ==
Something is striking - edits (minor and not always good) seem to come largely from amateurs or at least non-specialists; while some number theorists do edit the talk page, barely any edit the page itself. Specialists: [[be bold]] and edit. [[User:Garald|Garald]] ([[User talk:Garald|talk]]) 12:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 
== Combinatorial number theory ==
The number theory navbox has a link to "Combinatorial number theory" but that just links to a non-existent section on the number theory article. Should the link be removed or should the number theory article have a section for "Combinatorial number theory"? I notice there is a section called "arithmetic combinatorics" - is that just a modern name for "Combinatorial number theory"? [[User:Fdfexoex|Fdfexoex]] ([[User talk:Fdfexoex|talk]]) 03:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 
:In the [[Template:Number theory|Number theory navbox]], I have replaced [[Number theory#Combinatorial number theory|Combinatorial number theory]] with [[Arithmetic combinatorics]]. [[Number theory#Combinatorial number theory|Combinatorial number theory]] was a link to a section of [[Number theory]] that was deleted 02:50, 10 October 2011. [[Arithmetic combinatorics]] is the closest replacement. Thank you for pointing this out. {{=)}} — [[User:Anita5192|Anita5192]] ([[User talk:Anita5192|talk]]) 04:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 
== Takiltum ==
 
(related to reference 2 on the term takiltum being problematic - btw, one would expect to be able to click on the term takiltum to see some article on what it means)
"But the author of Plimpton 322 did not have a modern viewpoint. According to Robson, the p/q theory fails to account for many of the features of the tablet, including that fact that it records values of (c/a)2 instead of a. The reciprocal pair explanation, she says, makes more sense in light of what’s been learned about Old Babylonian tablets in the last half century. One key is the label for the first column. Neugebauer and Sachs rendered it as “The takiltum of the diagonal which has been subtracted such that the width...,” leaving takiltum untranslated and the label unfinished, because part of it near the end is unreadable. (“Diagonal” means “hypotenuse,” since right triangles arise by cutting a rectangle diagonally in half. “Width” and “short side” are also synonymous.) Subsequent scholars, observing the use of takiltum in other mathematical tablets, determined that it refers to a “helping” or “holding” number. With that meaning and an educated guess for what makes grammatical sense (and also fits physically) in the unreadable and damaged portions, Robson offers a new translation: “The holding-square of the diagonal from which 1 is torn out, so that the short side comes up.” That reading, she says, aligns well with the Old Babylonian approach to solving reciprocal-pair-type problems and with other mathematical tablets of the time. So it seems that the author of Plimpton 322 was no lone genius—but he was probably a very good teacher."
https://www.ams.org/publicoutreach/happ5-history.pdf <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/46.246.247.51|46.246.247.51]] ([[User talk:46.246.247.51#top|talk]]) 04:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 
== adding a picture of sir andrew ==
Line 83 ⟶ 69:
 
In the section '''Classical Greece and the early Hellenistic period''', it states that "Greek mathematics is also an indigenous tradition." You would expect the quotation that follows to support this statement, when it instead supports the opposite. (It is a quotation from Eusebius, claiming that Pythagoras didn't learn any mathematics from the Greeks, and only learned from the countries he traveled to.) It seems that either a different support is needed, or the statement is in error. [[User:Rlitwin|Rlitwin]] ([[User talk:Rlitwin|talk]]) 23:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 
:Agreed, I'm a bit confused on the wording here as well. [[User:Sock-the-guy|Sock-the-guy]] ([[User talk:Sock-the-guy|talk]]) 22:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 
== Possible Mistranslation/Erroneous Inclusion of Quote ==
Line 91 ⟶ 79:
 
On a more aesthetic note, the quote feels like a partial non-sequitur at its location in the introduction and not wholly relevant. [[User:Chollasequoia|Chollasequoia]] ([[User talk:Chollasequoia|talk]]) 00:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 
:Per [[WP:BOLD]], I've just gone ahead and removed it. [[User:Chollasequoia|Chollasequoia]] ([[User talk:Chollasequoia|talk]]) 01:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
:The tern ''number theory'' did not exist in the 18th century, the field of studying the properties of integers was called arithmetic (etc.) in both German and English. The modern term ''number theory'' basically functions to distinguish advanced arithmetic from the elementary arithmetic one learns in primary school. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 23:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 
:: In this context, "number theory" is definitely the right translation. But if the quote's gone, it doesn't really matter. - [[User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]]<small> ([[User talk:CRGreathouse|t]] | [[Special:Contributions/CRGreathouse|c]])</small> 12:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Excessive use of quotes? ==
 
I feel that the use of quotes such as Gauss' in the first paragraph detracts from the encyclopedic tone. However, this would be my first actual edit to a Wikipedia article and I wanted to pass it by some other people just to make sure that it actually makes sense. Thanks! [[User:GracenC|Gracen!]] (yell at me [[User talk:GracenC|here]]) 17:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
 
:Gauss's quotation is famous and appropriate here. However, some terms were in quotation marks instead of italics. I have updated them.—[[User:Anita5192|Anita5192]] ([[User talk:Anita5192|talk]]) 18:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks, I appreciate the advice! [[User:GracenC|Gracen!]] (yell at me [[User talk:GracenC|here]]) 19:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Revert of 5-years-old edits ==
 
It is uncommon to revert 5-years-old edits, as I did recently. The reason is as follows: coming back recently to this article I found it worse than I remembered. So, I searched in the history and found that an editor removed explanation of the sort of problems that a subarea is aimed to solve (in two case) or removed a sentence without which the next paragraph becomes non-sequitur. So, I reverted these edits, with small style improvements.
 
I have not checked whether some other disimprovements occured durring these five years without being reverted. [[User:D.Lazard|D.Lazard]] ([[User talk:D.Lazard|talk]]) 14:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Number_theory"