Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Euclidean algorithm/archive1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Euclidean algorithm: brief reply |
comments |
||
Line 69:
::::Actually I expect the Hilton and Wu book must be from the 60s too, since "Hilton" is Peter Hilton and he wrote several books in that period, all of which are well regarded but never really caught on like their competitors. Indeed, Hilton is rather infamous (in a humorous way) for writing a book on homology/cohomology (with Wylie) and using the terms homology and cohomology to refer the opposite way as everyone else used them. That never changed in subsequent editions even though by then it became clear they had lost the terminology reformation attempt. Herstein is also a bit weird in that he composes linear transformations from left to right instead of right to left. That never changed in recent printings. So anyway, if your point (which I think it may be) is that even though these books are old, but they were recently republished and so must reflect more modern terminology, I'm afraid I don't buy that. In my experience, republished classic texts often retain their classic (read: outdated) terminology, and the reader is supposed to be on guard for it. --[[User:C S|C S]] ([[User talk:C S|talk]]) 21:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::My point was simply that these books, regardless of their provenance, are still being used by students (as both books by Lang are, by your own admission), so it doesn't hurt to have the note. I have no idea if the terminology is outdated. Certainly Lowen's [http://books.google.com/books?id=8svFC09gGeMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA27,M1 Graduate Algebra: The Noncommutative View] (2008), [http://www.ams.org/bookstore-getitem/item=GSM/91 published by the AMS] does look recent. Anyway, this is not a biggie for me. Regards, [[User:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand and agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps I should have forestalled your comments by mentioning that Herstein is still a widely used book. --[[User:C S|C S]] ([[User talk:C S|talk]]) 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
;Comment on animation in lead
Line 80 ⟶ 82:
*'''Support'''. I have (inofficially) reviewed the article recently and found it very good (see the article talk page), and think it has even improved since. It is very comprehensive, accessible, provides pictures where useful. I only have one suggestion, which is easy to fix: please consider adding reference(s) for the section "Induction, recursion and infinite descent". I don't agree with Ottava Rima's point above, which is exaggerating verifiability, but that section could do with a brief reference for each of the three methods, just in the sense of a "further reading", if readers are interested in learning more about induction etc. (A reference mentioning these techniques in correlation to the EA would be ideal.) [[User:Jakob.scholbach|Jakob.scholbach]] ([[User talk:Jakob.scholbach|talk]]) 21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
**Yet, is that not why we have separate articles on [[mathematical induction]], [[recursion]] and [[infinite descent]]? Each of which has a well-written, extensive introduction, and with the except of 'infinite descent' has plentiful references? Is your suggestion because you don't like the look of a paragraph without footnote symbols? I'm genuinely confused by your comment, as we don't have a reference in the article for many other terms either (like [[ideal (ring theory)]]. I would suggest just adding some references to [[infinite descent]] instead. --[[User:C S|C S]] ([[User talk:C S|talk]]) 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
*''''Leaning to support'''. I haven't looked through the the whole article, but will do so. The "Game of Euclid" thing is not a good addition, but that can be argued (by those who care to) on the article talk page. Other issues discussed above all seem resolved. --[[User:C S|C S]] ([[User talk:C S|talk]]) 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
| |||