Content deleted Content added
Sapphorain (talk | contribs) →Arithmetic function: new section |
|||
Line 135:
:::: Yes, they are not arithmetical functions because they are defined on real positive numbers. I just don't understand these two last objections. If most classical introductory courses define an arithmetical function as any function whose ___domain are the positive integers (I cited 3 books, as well as a UIUC course in the talk page), I don't very well see how this could not be mentioned at all in the lead. Not mentioning it is equivalent to giving a wrong information. [[User:Sapphorain|Sapphorain]] ([[User talk:Sapphorain|talk]]) 19:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
::::: Sorry, you are completely right, I was very confused. --[[User:Joel B. Lewis|JBL]] ([[User_talk:Joel_B._Lewis|talk]]) 23:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
== Arithmetic function ==
Dear Sapphorain, you asked for sources for the page Arithmetic function (Entropy <math>H_f</math> of a given number with respect to a given multiplicative function <math>f</math>. I gave a proof, that <math>H_f</math> is additive, so one does not need additional sources.
Kind regards <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.69.187.201|88.69.187.201]] ([[User talk:88.69.187.201#top|talk]]) 16:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Dear [[Special:Contributions/88.69.187.201|88.69.187.201]]. But yes, there definitely is a need for a reliable independent source, first about the notion you wish to introduce, and secondly about the proof you propose. Your own proof about a notion you might have invented is not an acceptable source. You appear to be making a confusion between an encyclopedia and a math blog. Kind regards. [[User:Sapphorain|Sapphorain]] ([[User talk:Sapphorain#top|talk]]) 17:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
| |||