![]() | Unit fraction has been listed as one of the
Mathematics good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 29, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Unit fraction appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 April 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The revert I made it's because the content added by Rktect is a POV attempt to push his beliefs on egyptian world. Namely, that egyptians did knew how to square the circle.
Such image implictly states that egyptians were squaring circles, which accepted knowledge states as false.
tablets date to 2,000 BC, and show clear links to the RMP. You can see more about the Rhind papyrus in the History topic article Egyptian papyri. In the Rhind papyrus Ahmes gives a rule to construct a square of area nearly equal to that of a circle. The rule is to cut 1/9 off the circle's diameter and to construct a square on the remainder, because all of Egyptian arithmetic was based on remainders.
The discussion about the curves used by greeks on circle squaring are to be found at Talk:Squaring the circle where the three links mentioned below are analyzed and showing that they do not support a claim as strong as Rktect pretends
No, the circle squaring problem does not dates as back as the earliest geometry problems, which were calculational, not constructional.
No, greeks did not have a decimal system, but they weren't limited to using Egyptian fractions, for they could use rations that had other demonimators than 1. Indeed, any positive rational number can be represented as a finite sum of unit fractions, but in practice this is not as easily doable without good arithmetic system: 2/17 decomposes as egyptian fractions as 1/9 + 1/153, and denominators can become ugly even for small fractions. Furthermore, the fact that greeks did use all rational numbers in their calculations is illustrated by the fact that they believed ANY number was indeed as rational number (ergo the shock with sqrt(2))
See comments in Talk:Squaring the circle. BAsically, it's only to Rktect and a small handful of people that believe that such think as egyptian analytic geometry existed.
As phrased, it sounds that it's indeed topic subject to research by many mathematicians and scientists, whereas it is not. Therefore, I reverted [1]. -- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 03:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
35 1 1 1 --- = - + -- + ----- . 179 7 19 23807
Find such an expression for 3/179. Rktect 17:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
It is known that any fraction with an odd denominator is a sum of reciprocals of distinct odd integers
Rktect 23:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Can you explain the relavance of angle trisection, doubling the cube to unit fractions? Links on "External links" section should be relevant to the topic discussed. Otherwise, no reason to keep them. -- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 02:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that the sum of every unit fraction i.e. 1/1+1/2+1/3+1/4+1/5... is about 11.66757818, encase anyone wants to mention that in the article. Robo37 ( talk) 10:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Brachy0008 ( talk · contribs) 11:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
1. Is it well written?
1a. The prose is clear and concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
1b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
2. Is it verifiable with no original research? 2a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: References do not need to be consistently formatted or bibliographically complete, but they should contain enough information for you to be able to identify the source. Dead links should not be bare URLs.
2b. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons – science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: Verify that the 5 types of statements listed above are supported by inline citations. Check if there are any unreliable sources (see WP:RSP), including self-published sources and user-generated content.
2c. It contains no original research: Check at least some of the cited sources to see if they verify the article text. The article should not synthesize material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not stated by any of them.
2d. It contains no copyright violations or plagiarism: While verifying citations, check if any text has been copied or closely paraphrased into the article. Earwig's tool can help check for plagiarism of online sources ( https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios), but it should not replace manual checks as it cannot fully detect close paraphrasing.
3. Is it broad in its coverage? 3a. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: Ensure coverage of the main aspects. Note that to meet criteria 3a and 3b, comprehensiveness is not required: "broad in its coverage" allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
3b. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): Check for undue emphasis on tangents or minor details. Lengthy sections on subtopics should be spun off into their own articles, leaving summaries in their place.
4. Is it neutral? It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Each viewpoint should be weighted in proportion to its prevalence in reliable sources on the topic. Check if minority views are given undue weight in terms of the depth of detail, prominence of placement or word choice. Ensure that the article describes disputes without engaging in them.
5. Is it stable? It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Scan the article's history and talk page for edit wars and content disputes. Good-faith improvements (such as copyediting), changes made in response to the review, proposals to merge or split content, and reversions of vandalism do not apply here. Stability is based on the article's current state, not any potential for instability in the future.
6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio? 6a. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: Click on media to check for valid copyright tags and, if not freely-licensed, a valid non-free use rationale. If the article has no media, but there is a readily available, relevant image with an acceptable license, it should be included. Otherwise, mark 6a and 6b as passed since media are not required for GA status.
6b. Media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Check that media are not primarily decorative and have relevance to the topic. Captions should be succinct and informative.
Overall: Pass, fail or on hold If the article meets all 6 criteria, mark it as a pass. If it is only partially compliant or non-compliant, you may place the review on hold to allow time for issues to be fixed (generally 7 days). Often the nomination is brought up to standard during the review. If so, note this and close the review as a pass. If the nomination does not meet the criteria, close it as a fail. -->
(Criteria marked
are unassessed)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
00:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by David Eppstein ( talk). Nominated by Brachy0008 ( talk) at 01:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Unit fraction; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
@ Brachy0008 and David Eppstein: just a query about whether this article should have detail on the history of unit fractions and more information on their use within the context of Egyptian fractions... I think there's a lot of interesting information here, including the fact that fractions such as 1/3 predated things like 2/3 in the human development of maths, and would think this would be part of the "broad coverage" necessary for a GA tick. Cheeers — Amakuru ( talk) 09:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
predated things like 2/3 in the human development of maths– this seems like an overly strong assertion. Ancient people definitely had some concept of “two thirds”, but didn’t express that using the modern fraction concept per se. In ancient Mesopotamia there were very complicated systems of units going back to like 5000 BC. –– jacobolus (t) 16:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Unit fraction has been listed as one of the
Mathematics good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 29, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Unit fraction appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 26 April 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The revert I made it's because the content added by Rktect is a POV attempt to push his beliefs on egyptian world. Namely, that egyptians did knew how to square the circle.
Such image implictly states that egyptians were squaring circles, which accepted knowledge states as false.
tablets date to 2,000 BC, and show clear links to the RMP. You can see more about the Rhind papyrus in the History topic article Egyptian papyri. In the Rhind papyrus Ahmes gives a rule to construct a square of area nearly equal to that of a circle. The rule is to cut 1/9 off the circle's diameter and to construct a square on the remainder, because all of Egyptian arithmetic was based on remainders.
The discussion about the curves used by greeks on circle squaring are to be found at Talk:Squaring the circle where the three links mentioned below are analyzed and showing that they do not support a claim as strong as Rktect pretends
No, the circle squaring problem does not dates as back as the earliest geometry problems, which were calculational, not constructional.
No, greeks did not have a decimal system, but they weren't limited to using Egyptian fractions, for they could use rations that had other demonimators than 1. Indeed, any positive rational number can be represented as a finite sum of unit fractions, but in practice this is not as easily doable without good arithmetic system: 2/17 decomposes as egyptian fractions as 1/9 + 1/153, and denominators can become ugly even for small fractions. Furthermore, the fact that greeks did use all rational numbers in their calculations is illustrated by the fact that they believed ANY number was indeed as rational number (ergo the shock with sqrt(2))
See comments in Talk:Squaring the circle. BAsically, it's only to Rktect and a small handful of people that believe that such think as egyptian analytic geometry existed.
As phrased, it sounds that it's indeed topic subject to research by many mathematicians and scientists, whereas it is not. Therefore, I reverted [1]. -- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 03:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
35 1 1 1 --- = - + -- + ----- . 179 7 19 23807
Find such an expression for 3/179. Rktect 17:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
It is known that any fraction with an odd denominator is a sum of reciprocals of distinct odd integers
Rktect 23:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Can you explain the relavance of angle trisection, doubling the cube to unit fractions? Links on "External links" section should be relevant to the topic discussed. Otherwise, no reason to keep them. -- ( ☺drini♫| ☎) 02:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that the sum of every unit fraction i.e. 1/1+1/2+1/3+1/4+1/5... is about 11.66757818, encase anyone wants to mention that in the article. Robo37 ( talk) 10:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Brachy0008 ( talk · contribs) 11:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
1. Is it well written?
1a. The prose is clear and concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
1b. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
2. Is it verifiable with no original research? 2a. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: References do not need to be consistently formatted or bibliographically complete, but they should contain enough information for you to be able to identify the source. Dead links should not be bare URLs.
2b. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons – science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: Verify that the 5 types of statements listed above are supported by inline citations. Check if there are any unreliable sources (see WP:RSP), including self-published sources and user-generated content.
2c. It contains no original research: Check at least some of the cited sources to see if they verify the article text. The article should not synthesize material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not stated by any of them.
2d. It contains no copyright violations or plagiarism: While verifying citations, check if any text has been copied or closely paraphrased into the article. Earwig's tool can help check for plagiarism of online sources ( https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios), but it should not replace manual checks as it cannot fully detect close paraphrasing.
3. Is it broad in its coverage? 3a. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: Ensure coverage of the main aspects. Note that to meet criteria 3a and 3b, comprehensiveness is not required: "broad in its coverage" allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
3b. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): Check for undue emphasis on tangents or minor details. Lengthy sections on subtopics should be spun off into their own articles, leaving summaries in their place.
4. Is it neutral? It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Each viewpoint should be weighted in proportion to its prevalence in reliable sources on the topic. Check if minority views are given undue weight in terms of the depth of detail, prominence of placement or word choice. Ensure that the article describes disputes without engaging in them.
5. Is it stable? It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Scan the article's history and talk page for edit wars and content disputes. Good-faith improvements (such as copyediting), changes made in response to the review, proposals to merge or split content, and reversions of vandalism do not apply here. Stability is based on the article's current state, not any potential for instability in the future.
6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio? 6a. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: Click on media to check for valid copyright tags and, if not freely-licensed, a valid non-free use rationale. If the article has no media, but there is a readily available, relevant image with an acceptable license, it should be included. Otherwise, mark 6a and 6b as passed since media are not required for GA status.
6b. Media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Check that media are not primarily decorative and have relevance to the topic. Captions should be succinct and informative.
Overall: Pass, fail or on hold If the article meets all 6 criteria, mark it as a pass. If it is only partially compliant or non-compliant, you may place the review on hold to allow time for issues to be fixed (generally 7 days). Often the nomination is brought up to standard during the review. If so, note this and close the review as a pass. If the nomination does not meet the criteria, close it as a fail. -->
(Criteria marked
are unassessed)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
00:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by David Eppstein ( talk). Nominated by Brachy0008 ( talk) at 01:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Unit fraction; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
@ Brachy0008 and David Eppstein: just a query about whether this article should have detail on the history of unit fractions and more information on their use within the context of Egyptian fractions... I think there's a lot of interesting information here, including the fact that fractions such as 1/3 predated things like 2/3 in the human development of maths, and would think this would be part of the "broad coverage" necessary for a GA tick. Cheeers — Amakuru ( talk) 09:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
predated things like 2/3 in the human development of maths– this seems like an overly strong assertion. Ancient people definitely had some concept of “two thirds”, but didn’t express that using the modern fraction concept per se. In ancient Mesopotamia there were very complicated systems of units going back to like 5000 BC. –– jacobolus (t) 16:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)