Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Euclidean algorithm/archive1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:05, 3 May 2009

Revision as of 22:23, 3 May 2009

Line 126:

**"The greatest common divisor is often written as GCD(a, b) or, more simply, as (a, b)." Yes, the second version is simpler, but that notation is also used for ''lots'' of other things in mathematics. What (a, b) represents depends on the context of the problem, and I think it would be wise to mention this so as not to mislead our less mathematically-inclined readers.

**"neither 6 = 2×3 nor 35 = 5×7 is a prime number, since they both have two prime factors" I think it may be a tad confusing to include the prime factorization at first; perhaps this should be added later: "neither 6 nor 35 is a prime number, since they both have two prime factors: 6 = 2x3 and 35 = 5x7." or something like that. Also, shouldn't it be "neither 6 nor 35 '''are''' prime number'''s'''" ?

***[http://www.bartleby.com/68/47/4047.html Neither/nor] - it depends if you think 6 and 35 are singular or plural. Are they singular because they are individual numerals or are they plural because they abstractly represent "more than one"? Tricky. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 20:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

****Hrm. Well, I'm not particularly sure about it myself, so use your best judgment. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. --'''[[User:Cryptic C62|Cryptic C62]] · [[User talk: Cryptic C62|Talk]]''' 22:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

**"Imagine a rectangular area a by b, and consider any common divisor c that divides both a and b exactly." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an episode of Spongebob Squarepants. No sentence in an encyclopedia should start with "imagine."

**"the GCD(462, 1071) = 3×7" In all other instances thus far, you have chosen not to use an article before GCD. Did you mean to say "the'''n''' GCD(462, 1071) = 3×7"?

**"Integer factorization is thought to be a difficult problem for large numbers." A bit weaselly, and it's not particularly difficult if you have a calculator handy. Perhaps "can be" instead of "is thought to be" ?

**"A more subtle definition of the GCD is helpful in advanced mathematics, particularly ring theory." This statement should probably be accompanied by a ref.

**"GCD(a, b, c) = GCD(a, GCD(b, c)) = GCD(GCD(a, b), c)" Shouldn't this also include " = GCD(GCD(a, c), b)"?

**"Thus, Euclid's algorithm, which computes the GCD of two numbers, suffices to calculate the GCD of arbitrarily many numbers." Odd wording at the end. Suggest switching to "integers" to allow the following rewrite: "Thus, Euclid's algorithm, which computes the GCD of two integers, suffices to calculate the GCD of any number of integers."

* More to come. Good work thus far. --'''[[User:Cryptic C62|Cryptic C62]] · [[User talk: Cryptic C62|Talk]]''' 19:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

**[http://www.bartleby.com/68/47/4047.html Neither/nor] - it depends if you think 6 and 35 are singular or plural. Are they singular because they are individual numerals or are they plural because they abstractly represent "more than one"? Tricky. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 20:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)