Content deleted Content added
Line 119:
::::: I am a number theorist. Your diagram and the comments you wrote about it don't make any sense to me. I think this diagram can't help anybody to understand better the Omega function, except maybe yourself, and that it doesn't fit in a wikipedia article. [[User:Sapphorain|Sapphorain]] ([[User talk:Sapphorain|talk]]) 13:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
::::: If the calculation being represented by this figure falls under [[WP:CALC]] then you should be able to describe, in one or two sentences, exactly what is being calculated. Neither the caption nor your comments do this. Until this changes, I agree with Sapphorain. --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 15:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
::::::Generally the interest for mathematics as a studying subject profits from graphic demonstrations of complex mathematical circumstances so I am actually very sure that the diagram's '''''3''''' sentences, [[User:Joel B. Lewis]], describe pretty exactly a certain binary behavior of Ω. It demonstrates that small values of Ω are so dominant that for a least balancing against Ω=3 (binary: 11) e.g. the occurrences of Ω=2 without divisor 3 could appear like one binary digit 0. Such a view to distributions of Ω values would be at present completely absent in Wikipedia without that diagram? — For a graphic contribution about that distribution, which also only lists plain calculation results, there is no need for any "I'm a great scientist but it just makes no sense to me" runs here and we can stay exactly and focused at the topic, with the diagram in the article, ok? --[[User:LKreissig|LKreissig]] ([[User talk:LKreissig|talk]]) 22:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
| |||