Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Euler's totient function) (bot |
m Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <tt> (4x) Tag: Fixed lint errors |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 198:
:The TeX version is an uppercase [[phi (letter)|phi]], Φ. The lowercase phi can also be generated, <code>\varphi</code> <math>\varphi</math>. There are HTML-versions for both uppercase and lowercase phis too, <code>&Phi;</code> Φ and <code>&phi;</code> φ. I don't know for sure but I think the uppercase phi is the "official" symbol used to denote the Euler's totient function and thus that should be used. Currently all articles I have seen referring to this article unfortunately use the lowercase phi. But of course it would be simple to convert them into uppercase phis if so is agreed. --[[User:ZeroOne|ZeroOne]] (<small>[[User talk:ZeroOne|talk]]</small> | <small>[[Special:Emailuser/ZeroOne|@]]</small>) 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::The TeX <
:::Confusing. Uppercase TeX phi: <math>\Phi</math>. So you are saying that Euler's totient function should be denoted with a lowercase phi, then? --[[User:ZeroOne|ZeroOne]] (<small>[[User talk:ZeroOne|talk]]</small> | <small>[[Special:Emailuser/ZeroOne|@]]</small>) 18:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Line 347:
:::::In Wikipedia, decisions are taken by consensus, as described in details in [[WP:CON]]. However, few people have given their opinion. One could start a [[WP:request for comments]]. But, as nobody disagrees formally with you, and your arguments are convincing, I have self-reverted my revert of your edits. The change of title (called [[WP:moving a page|move]] in WP) seems less important than editing the content, because the title you suggest exists as a [[WP:redirect]]. For technical reasons, it may be done (in this case) only through a [[WP:move request]]. [[User:D.Lazard|D.Lazard]] ([[User talk:D.Lazard|talk]]) 19:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
== Totient numbers ==
This section contains {{tq|there are infinitely many nontotients, and indeed every odd number has an even multiple which is a nontotient}}, the word "even" being added by a recent edit. In both versions, this sentence is a nonsense, as every odd number greater than 1 is a nontotient; thus no need to consider multiples. I guess that the correct assertion should be {{tq|every totient has a multiple (by an odd number) that is a nontotient}}. However this needs to be checked on the source. [[User:D.Lazard|D.Lazard]] ([[User talk:D.Lazard|talk]]) 09:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
: As you say, odd numbers greater than 1 are trivially nontotients, so what is of interest is the existence of even nontotients. I imagine the previous writer meant "there are infinitely many even nontotients, and indeed..." but just forgot the "even". I've checked the paper and in fact it proves that any number (even or odd) has a multiple which is a nontotient. If n is odd then the nontotient multiple of 2n gives an even nontotient multiple of n, so this is equivalent to saying any number has an even nontotient multiple. I'll make those changes. [[User:Especially Lime|Especially Lime]] ([[User talk:Especially Lime|talk]]) 08:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
== Unexplained revert of style improvement ==
My edit in [[Euler's totient function#Euler's product formula]] has been reverted by an IP user, without any explanation. My edit consisted in
*Removing, per [[MOS:HEADINGS]] the redundant reference (through a formula) to the article title.
*Replacing a heading consisting of a technical formula by a less technical phrase (the formula was redundant, as reproduced in the body
*Avoiding the confusing term "modulo-and-coprime", which is nowhere defined in Wikipedia
*Linking [[coprime]]
All are style improvements that does affect in any way the content of the article. As I cannot find any valid reason for rejecting these edits, I have restored them. Please, if I have missed something, please discuss here before a second revert. [[User:D.Lazard|D.Lazard]] ([[User talk:D.Lazard|talk]]) 15:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
|