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

Revision as of 03:35, 9 May 2009

Revision as of 04:13, 10 May 2009

Line 186:

**::Your initial reaction is similar to mine. Bu let me argue that the implementations contribute at least epsilon to the article for most readers, and for some readers may convey the algorithm's idea better than anything else. I note that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclidean_algorithm&oldid=276556143 when I arrived] at this article — then rated at nearly GA level by the Math WikiProject — the implementations were the article's main content, having been debated and perfected for over [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euclidean_algorithm&oldid=250714 seven years]. Some editors champion the pseudocode as the only valid way of defining the algorithm precisely. In deference to these editors and in deference to the many readers like them, I feel we should retain the Implementations section. [[User:Proteins|Proteins]] ([[User talk:Proteins|talk]]) 03:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

**:::Deference to these editors? Pfft. Perhaps you have forgotten the disclaimer: "If you don't want your writing to be '''edited mercilessly''' or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." As for the readers, they come here for a lot of things that they really shouldn't (medical advice comes to mind). The very most we can do in regards to instruction content like this is to provide an informative link — perhaps to a WikiHow article or a programming site. I realize that you have the best intentions by wanting to keep the material, but the fact of the matter is that it really doesn't belong here. The other points you've brought up are largely irrelevant. --'''[[User:Cryptic C62|Cryptic C62]] · [[User talk: Cryptic C62|Talk]]''' 03:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

**::Let me clarify the question with a triple negative. ;) I'm NOT saying that we should violate WP:NOT in order to NOT hurt the feelings of some devoted editors. Rather, the pivotal issue is whether the Implementations section allows us to ''explain the algorithm'' to readers who might not really understand it otherwise. I argue yes. It's not about providing snippets of HOWTO code, but rather providing another avenue that connects the algorithm to our readers. [[User:Proteins|Proteins]] ([[User talk:Proteins|talk]]) 04:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

**"if the resulting negative remainder is smaller in absolute value than the typical positive remainder" You used "magnitude" earlier. I recommend swapping out "absolute value" for "magnitude" for consistency.

**::OK, sounds good. [[User:Proteins|Proteins]] ([[User talk:Proteins|talk]]) 03:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Line 193 ⟶ 194:

**::Great catch, although I predict that most non-mathematicians would assume that "multiple = integer multiple". [[User:Proteins|Proteins]] ([[User talk:Proteins|talk]]) 03:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

**"The algorithm was likely known by Eudoxus of Cnidus (about 375 BC). The use of the technical term ἀνθυφαίρεσις (anthyphairesis, reciprocal subtraction) in Euclid and Aristotle (Topics IV) suggests that the algorithm predates Eudoxus." I see what you're getting at, but to some readers, these sentences may seem to contradict each other. Suggested rewrite: "The use of the technical term ἀνθυφαίρεσις (anthyphairesis, reciprocal subtraction) in Euclid and Aristotle (Topics IV) suggests that what we now know as the Euclidean Algorithm may have predated [[Eudoxus of Cnidus]], a Greek mathematician who died in approximately 350 BC." or some such. Meh. That's not exactly perfect either. Give it some thought.

**::That's a good suggestion, and very helpful. I toyed with the wording beforehand, but I didn't come up with anything as good as yours. I've uploaded a third wording that may combine the best of our efforts. [[User:Proteins|Proteins]] ([[User talk:Proteins|talk]]) 04:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

**"Euclid's algorithm was re-invented both in India and in China" "re-invent" often implies that an existing concept was significantly improved. I think "independently developed" or "independently discovered" might serve better.

**::Good idea, made additional minor changes in wording. [[User:Proteins|Proteins]] ([[User talk:Proteins|talk]]) 03:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)