Talk:superparticular number
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Msh210 in topic superparticular number
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Is it just (deprecated template usage) superparticular + (deprecated template usage) number? Ƿidsiþ 12:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Dunno, I can't understand superparticular. Anyone else? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- It had a typo, which I've now fixed: perhaps you can better understand it now. In any event, it defines superparticular as a particular kind of ratio. I'm not sure what sense of ratio is meant. If it's a number, then superparticular number's definition is just "a number which is superparticular", SoP. If OTOH ratio in our definition of superparticular is the "the relative magnitudes of two quantities (usually expressed as a quotient)" sense, i.e. something that looks like a fraction (so that 6/4 is not the same as 3/2), then superparticular applies to a particular such representation, and superparticular number, currently defined as "a number in the form of a ratio where […] " should be instead "a number which can be written in the form of a ratio where […] " i.e. a number that can be written as a superparticular fraction, and is not AFAICT SoP. (Even if ratio in the definition of superparticular means a number so that superparticular is SoP, if we wind up keeping it for some reason as we do so many SoPs then we should reword its definition, as "a number in the form of" makes no sense.)—msh210℠ 18:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- (After checking bgc.) From hits it looks as though ratio in our definition of superparticular means (or should mean0 a number, i.e. that a superparticular anything relates to the number (e.g.) 5/4 and not the representation 5/4. So I say delete.—msh210℠ 19:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- It had a typo, which I've now fixed: perhaps you can better understand it now. In any event, it defines superparticular as a particular kind of ratio. I'm not sure what sense of ratio is meant. If it's a number, then superparticular number's definition is just "a number which is superparticular", SoP. If OTOH ratio in our definition of superparticular is the "the relative magnitudes of two quantities (usually expressed as a quotient)" sense, i.e. something that looks like a fraction (so that 6/4 is not the same as 3/2), then superparticular applies to a particular such representation, and superparticular number, currently defined as "a number in the form of a ratio where […] " should be instead "a number which can be written in the form of a ratio where […] " i.e. a number that can be written as a superparticular fraction, and is not AFAICT SoP. (Even if ratio in the definition of superparticular means a number so that superparticular is SoP, if we wind up keeping it for some reason as we do so many SoPs then we should reword its definition, as "a number in the form of" makes no sense.)—msh210℠ 18:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- keep, whatever the meaning of superparticular. superparticular number is a mathematical term. Same case as topological space: even though the sense of topological in this phrase might be defined in topological, keeping topological space is really useful. Lmaltier 19:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- If it is a common set term in maths, then I am happy keeping it – I just couldn't tell how much it was really used. Ƿidsiþ 08:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- And how do you know, Lmaltier, that superparticular number is a mathematical term, as opposed to superparticular's being a mathematical term, and number's following it relatively frequently?—msh210℠ 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- see w:superparticular number. Keep--Pierpao 09:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I've checked out that page, and have no idea what part of it you're pointing us to. Please clarify.—msh210℠ 15:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Common, I don't know, but it seems to be a set term in maths, yes. Lmaltier 18:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I've checked out that page, and have no idea what part of it you're pointing us to. Please clarify.—msh210℠ 15:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- (deprecated template usage) prime number is just a number that is prime, but I seem to remember it passing RFD. Equinox ◑ 22:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of course. Many dictionaries define prime number, and common sense makes obvious that this is a mathematical term needing a definition. Lmaltier 05:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently I lack common sense then! It's any number that is prime (in the sense glossed "math"). Oh well. Equinox ◑ 08:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- You recall correctly: talk:prime number. There, too, I said to delete.—msh210℠ 15:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of course. Many dictionaries define prime number, and common sense makes obvious that this is a mathematical term needing a definition. Lmaltier 05:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
@msh210 Sorry i didn't see your clarifing request. the espression superparticular number is "idiomatic". it's more than the sum of part. It's not a "not normal" numer, a strange numer, a fuzzy nuber, it's a unique and very exactly mathematical definition which have not any other names. keep--Pierpao 13:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I read what I could find in the net about "superparticular". Those who are interested may check the result of the study in the entry superparticular. It seems to me that "superparticular ratio" would be a more accurate term for the definition which we currently have for "superparticular number". However, "s-ratio" and "s-number" seem to be used synonymously in current writings, and Wiktionary is committed to being descriptive rather than normative. The concept of superparticularity does not seem to be an issue in modern mathematics, but it is an important concept in the study of harmony in music. This, of course, does not solve the keep-or-not-to-keep dilemma. --Hekaheka 16:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
(Sigh.) Kept.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)