![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
What is the arithmetic-geometric mean of 1 and 2? AxelBoldt — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelBoldt ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 30 January 2002 (UTC)
 ;; Determine if two numbers are already very close together (define (ratio-diff a b) (abs (/ (- a b) b)))  ;; Actually do the computation (define (loop a b)  ;; If they're already really close together, just return the arithmetic mean (if (< (ratio-diff a b) epsilon) (/ (+ a b) 2) (loop (sqrt (* a b)) (/ (+ a b) 2)))) ; otherwise, do another step  ;; Error checking
(if (or (not (real? a)) (not (real? b)) (<= a 0) (<= b 0)) (error 'agm "~s and ~s must both be positive real numbers" a b) (loop a b)))
I found source code implementations in three languages on this page. Having three variations does not give encyclopedic value, and I personally hardly find much value in having an implementation at all on the page (after all, the defining equation is in there already, and is for practical purposes identical to the source code). Therefore, I was bold and removed all three of them (instead of choosing one to keep).
The source codes in question are stored in the previous version: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Arithmetic-geometric_mean&oldid=289728680
Remember, Wikipedia is not a source code repository, WP:NOT. -- Berland ( talk) 13:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the AGM property hold for any (finite?) set of numbers? Not just two, as represented in the article? Akshayaj 20:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It's easy enough to find a use for an arithmetic mean, and a use for a geometric mean, but when do you use an arithmetic-geometric mean? — Daniel 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The new long proof section by Shlav seems to be not very useful, as encyclopedic content goes. Do we really need it? If we do, can we at least cite a source so we can verify it? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone think there needs a separate article for the " AGM method"? It overlaps substantially with the contents of this one. Arguably, that one is slightly better written. Tijfo098 ( talk) 03:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
the formula for K must be wrong because K(1)=infinity and this requires agm()=0, that is possible only if an argument is zero. I suspect that cos(k) should be sqr(1-k)
There is also a confusion arising from using two different definitions of K [I regret that this could cause friction between two different contributors for the nomenclature to be deleted]
pietro (I am writing from a site where I cannot run any numerical program)
2001:760:2C00:8001:192E:BA47:5CBE:D663 ( talk) 15:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Please discuss the addition of the extraneous formula π, instead of huffy reverts and score settling in the comment boxes of the edits. It is presumed that ‎PseudoScientist and 2A00:1370:8128:73E:C811:B591:263B:B6C6: are the same, or related users, attempting to thereby bypass the WP:3RR rule. Very bad karma. The edit would not be unwarranted provided the eponymy nonsense is taken out, and only survives in the reference. Internet-linking the author's personal page, however, is against WP policy, and rather fulsome. Discuss first. I'm sure this could be resolved. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 22:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
IP 94.230.167.230 has been regularly trying to insert a pointless (presumably self-serving) section, and peremptorily reverting its deletion by several editors. I posted a 3RR warning on his talk page, but evidently he believes use of another IP ,[ 83.149.208.133 , from a different city in that country affords him an exemption. I persist on inviting his arguments here to resolve the matter, but, failing that, one may need to have him blocked. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 15:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
What is the arithmetic-geometric mean of 1 and 2? AxelBoldt — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelBoldt ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 30 January 2002 (UTC)
 ;; Determine if two numbers are already very close together (define (ratio-diff a b) (abs (/ (- a b) b)))  ;; Actually do the computation (define (loop a b)  ;; If they're already really close together, just return the arithmetic mean (if (< (ratio-diff a b) epsilon) (/ (+ a b) 2) (loop (sqrt (* a b)) (/ (+ a b) 2)))) ; otherwise, do another step  ;; Error checking
(if (or (not (real? a)) (not (real? b)) (<= a 0) (<= b 0)) (error 'agm "~s and ~s must both be positive real numbers" a b) (loop a b)))
I found source code implementations in three languages on this page. Having three variations does not give encyclopedic value, and I personally hardly find much value in having an implementation at all on the page (after all, the defining equation is in there already, and is for practical purposes identical to the source code). Therefore, I was bold and removed all three of them (instead of choosing one to keep).
The source codes in question are stored in the previous version: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Arithmetic-geometric_mean&oldid=289728680
Remember, Wikipedia is not a source code repository, WP:NOT. -- Berland ( talk) 13:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't the AGM property hold for any (finite?) set of numbers? Not just two, as represented in the article? Akshayaj 20:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It's easy enough to find a use for an arithmetic mean, and a use for a geometric mean, but when do you use an arithmetic-geometric mean? — Daniel 20:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The new long proof section by Shlav seems to be not very useful, as encyclopedic content goes. Do we really need it? If we do, can we at least cite a source so we can verify it? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone think there needs a separate article for the " AGM method"? It overlaps substantially with the contents of this one. Arguably, that one is slightly better written. Tijfo098 ( talk) 03:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
the formula for K must be wrong because K(1)=infinity and this requires agm()=0, that is possible only if an argument is zero. I suspect that cos(k) should be sqr(1-k)
There is also a confusion arising from using two different definitions of K [I regret that this could cause friction between two different contributors for the nomenclature to be deleted]
pietro (I am writing from a site where I cannot run any numerical program)
2001:760:2C00:8001:192E:BA47:5CBE:D663 ( talk) 15:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Please discuss the addition of the extraneous formula π, instead of huffy reverts and score settling in the comment boxes of the edits. It is presumed that ‎PseudoScientist and 2A00:1370:8128:73E:C811:B591:263B:B6C6: are the same, or related users, attempting to thereby bypass the WP:3RR rule. Very bad karma. The edit would not be unwarranted provided the eponymy nonsense is taken out, and only survives in the reference. Internet-linking the author's personal page, however, is against WP policy, and rather fulsome. Discuss first. I'm sure this could be resolved. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 22:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
IP 94.230.167.230 has been regularly trying to insert a pointless (presumably self-serving) section, and peremptorily reverting its deletion by several editors. I posted a 3RR warning on his talk page, but evidently he believes use of another IP ,[ 83.149.208.133 , from a different city in that country affords him an exemption. I persist on inviting his arguments here to resolve the matter, but, failing that, one may need to have him blocked. Cuzkatzimhut ( talk) 15:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)