Talk:Square root

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
B Class
Top Importance
 Field:  Basics
A vital article.
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

List[edit]

Should there be a selection of articles about square numbers? If so, why? Hyacinth (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No. So there is no why, just reasons for not having one. E.g., because the atempt -2 edits ago- did not provide an impression of improvement, but rather a distorted or squishy picture of the notion. Purgy (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
My second question was conditional. If there are reasons for not having a list, why don't you write some of them here? The original list was not my creation; see: Old revision of List of square roots. Hyacinth (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I fully recognized this question as being put under a condition (no need to link this term). Since no reaction was specified for it being not satisfied, I nevertheless supplied, for courtesy, an exemplary reason for my opinion, derived in consideration of the list you linked to: The list provides rather a distorted or squishy picture of the notion.
I apologize if the above does not sound amiable, but I tried to react aligned to the perceived requirements. Purgy (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, and your politeness. This conversation is mostly moot because of the lists at Square root#Principal square roots of the positive integers and Square root#See also. Hyacinth (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

3 • 3[edit]

For those who contemplate to defend Deacon_Vorbis’s trash:

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Mathematics #Multiplication_sign.

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This "trash" had been stable for quite some time; I couldn't even find the original edit in the article history. Anyway, I'm not sure why the dot is a problem; its use is even explained in the very first sentence. Nothing in the MoS is set in stone, and it even specifically mentions a dot as alternative notation. Finally, there's always reason to be leery of using a cross for multiplication, which is due to its visual similarity with the variable x. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_root&diff=872979885&oldid=872966464
U+2022, bullet (typography) U+22C5, dot operator
explicitly discouraged by the MOS from multiplication and MOSMATH

Hence, trash is trash. The 900% font size is intentional, for people who aren’t well-versed in characters.Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

And also, I said that the “the original edit” was revision 770294100. What can be unclear here? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi and Deacon Vorbis: Obviously, most people are not acquainted with the dot for multiplication. Obviously, virtually everybody is acquainted with the multiplication sign. Obviously, in the context "3 × 3 = 9" nobody could possibly confuse the multiplication sign with a letter x, so that's utterly irrelevant. Therefore it is blindingly obvious that a multiplication sign will be more helpful to the vast majority of readers of the encyclopaedia.
The main reason that I do very little editing of Wikipedia articles about mathematics is that in my early days here I got sick of the frustrating experience of battling against mathematicians who keep insisting on presenting mathematical topics in ways that are inaccessible to typical readers, and who will not listen to arguments for doing otherwise. Most of them only edit to any significant extent for two or three years and then fade out, but by then someone else has come along and edits in the same obstructive way. This doesn't happen with historians on articles about history, or physicists in articles about physics, or doctors in articles about medicine, or in fact anywhere else: it's just mathematicians. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Did you see ([1], [2], [3]) the joker who pretends to confuse the dot with a full stop and then also pretends not to even read the "next" sentence? Anyway, I don't particularly care whether we take the dot or the x. I would just write it as "3 × 3", and see what happens. This, "3 × 3" apparently Face-smile.svg - DVdm (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I did see that, in fact it was seeing those edits that drew my attention to this discussion. I actually don't know whether it is, as you say, a joker, or whether it is someone who honestly doesn't understand. After several decades of teaching mathematics I can assure you that there are millions of people who are perfectly capable of writing such utter nonsense as that while sincerely thinking that what they are doing is right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Look buddies… one GiantSnowman used automatic tools to rollback several hundreds edits—not even smear, just poor unsourced edits—and he’s an admin yet! Why do you sit here, indeed? Go to the project and propose aggressive measures against all this trash. Let users well-versed in MOS revert all these ignorant bullets and billets before they become entrenched. Use blocks against edit warriors, at the end. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Summary formatting[edit]

a square root of a number a is a number y

English article "a" = 3 Variable "a" = 1

Total "a" = 4

alternative -> (note the code block disambiguation for variables)

a square root of a number a is a number y

The a's trip-up a casual reader (maybe not math savants ...)

Constant314 care to comment ?

0xSkyy (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Your most recent edit of the article looks good to me.Constant314 (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
But not to me, so I've reverted it. You might want to see Help:Displaying a formula and MOS:MATH for some guidance on the technical aspects. But I'm not sure your objection to seeing a (or a) as a variable is automatically helped by using a different font (as {{mvar}} does). Generally I'm okay with switching to {{math}}/{{mvar}}, but it should probably be done consistently, and <code>...</code> should never be used for this purpose. You had sentences that switched back and forth between using it and not using it. As far as your ultimate objection, using a different letter might be a better alternative, but it might be good to hear from others too. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
In fact, I see the reset of the article itself is fairly inconsistent with regard to normal italics vs. {{math}}/{{mvar}}, so I guess changing the lead wouldn't make that part any worse, but there's still the issue of a vs. some other letter. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:17, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer x over a. x is used in other parts of the article. Constant314 (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
To 0xSkyy: I agree with Deacon Vorbis's revert: the use of <big> makes the article inconsistent with all other math articles. ''{{mvar|a}}'' is nonsensical, as the quotes have no effect at all. Use {{mvar|a}} or {{math|''a''}}. The latter is easier to use here, as a single clic suffices after having selected ''a''. Also, {{mvar}} should no be used for formulas that are not reduced to a single variable. It is much better to enclose the whole formula with {{math}}.
I would agree with changing a to x: beside the typographical clarification, this would help clarifying that a number and its square root have the same nature (being real numbers, for example)
I would also agree with enclosing with {{math}} all formulas in the lead (at least).D.Lazard (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
To Deacon Vorbis: To Constant314: I just enclosed math objects in lead section with {{math}}, I have less opinion on variable name, so do as needed. (p.s. Some math textbooks might use (a,b,c .. ) (x,y,z) variable name sets to create mental separation or mental inertia to refer to different topics when used together, I'm not sure it is or is-not the case here. ) --0xSkyy (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)