![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 April 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
John Conway (no crank or nut) insists "heptadecagon" is wrong and should be called "Heptakaidecagon", anyone know about this?
There are links on this article to a Korean heptadecagon construction animation, which is good besides being unable to read it. But I'm wondering, since Wikipedia should be a repository of knowledge and not a collection of links to other places with that knowledge, should I post a heptadecagon construction animation as I have for other polygons? I'm hesitant because it'd be messy and about 360KB. Jonathan48 21:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I wonder who had the idea of writing ".... 158.823529411765 degrees" on one of the first lines of the article... Of course this is not exact, and at least half of the digits are completely useless. Why not write 2700/17 = 158 \frac{14}{17} \approx 158.82 ? Or, say, "approximately 158.82" ? — MFH: Talk 22:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Gauss must have known how to handle simplifications like
so why did he write that expression the way he did? What information would be lost or hidden by this simplification?
—
Herbee
23:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
There are ??? in the description at the bottem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.230.225 ( talk) 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
But the Fermat prime for n=5 is 4294967297 2^5 = 32 2^32 = 4294967296 4294967296 + 1 = 4294967297 and n=6: 2^6 = 64 2^64 = 18446744073709551616 18446744073709551616 + 1 = 18446744073709551617
So the statement that "only the Fermat primes for n = 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4" is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taktoa ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 April 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
John Conway (no crank or nut) insists "heptadecagon" is wrong and should be called "Heptakaidecagon", anyone know about this?
There are links on this article to a Korean heptadecagon construction animation, which is good besides being unable to read it. But I'm wondering, since Wikipedia should be a repository of knowledge and not a collection of links to other places with that knowledge, should I post a heptadecagon construction animation as I have for other polygons? I'm hesitant because it'd be messy and about 360KB. Jonathan48 21:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I wonder who had the idea of writing ".... 158.823529411765 degrees" on one of the first lines of the article... Of course this is not exact, and at least half of the digits are completely useless. Why not write 2700/17 = 158 \frac{14}{17} \approx 158.82 ? Or, say, "approximately 158.82" ? — MFH: Talk 22:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Gauss must have known how to handle simplifications like
so why did he write that expression the way he did? What information would be lost or hidden by this simplification?
—
Herbee
23:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
There are ??? in the description at the bottem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.230.225 ( talk) 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
But the Fermat prime for n=5 is 4294967297 2^5 = 32 2^32 = 4294967296 4294967296 + 1 = 4294967297 and n=6: 2^6 = 64 2^64 = 18446744073709551616 18446744073709551616 + 1 = 18446744073709551617
So the statement that "only the Fermat primes for n = 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4" is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taktoa ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)