E (mathematical constant) 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
In e (mathematical constant)#History there is a simple statement that the first time someone designated a symbol for this constant was Leibnitz in correspondence with Huygens. It seems pretty straightforward to me but there is clarification needed tag. The reason given is that Bernoulli used this value earlier in his studies on compound interest. That is irrelevant. The statement talks about the first use of the symbol not the first use of the constant. I replaced the original sentence by one that made the position clear. And I added a citation that clearly stated that the first use of the symbol 'b' was by Leibnitz. This has been reverted. I shall restore my edit unless someone can explain why something so obvious needs clarification. OrewaTel ( talk) 06:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, including whole subsections, which means that GA criterion 2, which requires nearly everything to be cited, is not met.
I also think that this article could perhaps use more detail ( Pi is around 4x the length) but I am not an expert. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The redirect 7.3984 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 7 § 7.3984 until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew ( talk) 22:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
In the introduction section, the function ex is characterized as the unique function f that equals its own derivative and satisfies the equation f(0) = 1. The latter part of this is unnecessary information, and implies that there are other, unrelated functions that equal their own derivatives but do not equal 1 at x=0, which is not true. The only other functions that equal their own derivatives are trivial variants of ex like 2ex and ex+1. This would be better rephrased as such, as the fact that the function satisfies f(0) = 1 is not inherently useful to a reader. Pradyung ( talk) 20:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
which is not trueof course it's true: saying "those are just trivial variants" doesn't make them cease to exist. It also has the virtue of being precise and meaningful, whereas your version leaves completely unclear what the phrase "trivial variants" is supposed to mean. -- JBL ( talk) 20:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
It strikes me that the lede of the article spends too much space on various definitions of the constant. Currently two whole paragraphs of the lede are devoted to various representations and definitions. I think these could be summarized in plain English, and details deferred to a later section. ( WP:MTAA warns against too many equations in the lede, and I think they are certainly excessive here.) Thoughts? Tito Omburo ( talk) 23:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect E (mathematical constant has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § E (mathematical constant until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 01:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
We had a discussion as to whether we should say, "e is the base of natural logarithms" or "e is the base of the natural logarithm" and no clear consensus was reached. Nevertheless I thought the agreement was to use the normal English phrase, "base of natural logs." Now this has been reopened by an editor who not only used the phrase, "base of the natural logarithm" but reverted the correction without an explanation. Can we settle this please?
There are an infinity of natural logarithms but they all have one thing in common. If they are natural logarithms then their base is e. If you say 'the natural logarithm' then you mean just one value. But which value? For example the natural logarithm of 2 is 0.69314718…. Its base is e but why choose ln(2) rather than ln(3)? It is much easier to indicate that the base of all natural logarithms is e. Of course the base of the natural logarithm function is e but why use stilted English instead of the common phrase. OrewaTel ( talk) 09:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't really object to the new lede, less the lengthy second paragraph from the old version. I still feel that "base of the natural logarithm" is more than adequately supported, both by regular usage in mathematics and by sources. And scholar actually shows a slight preference for the singular rather than plural: [3], [4]. This, together with the massively more prevalent ghits of the singular, strongly suggests that the singular is typical in English usage. (See also, in complex variables, one talks of the "branch of the logarithm", also, one talks of the "sine and cosine", the "natural exponential", and so forth, it being understood that one is referring to functions.) Note that at one point, you had agreed that "natural logarithm" refers to the unary operator, rather than just its values. As had User:Trovatore, User:Ancheta Wis, and User:Quantling. So, I'm hardly out on a limb: the earlier consensus clearly favored the singular. As Trovatore wrote:
It's difficult to disagree with this. Do you agree? If so, I will restore the old consensus singular. Tito Omburo ( talk) 15:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
In /info/en/?search=Jacob_Bernoulli the year of discovery is stated as 1683 while in this article it is 1685. Can someone clarify the discrepancy. Thanks 192.56.200.12 ( talk) 13:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
E (mathematical constant) 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
In e (mathematical constant)#History there is a simple statement that the first time someone designated a symbol for this constant was Leibnitz in correspondence with Huygens. It seems pretty straightforward to me but there is clarification needed tag. The reason given is that Bernoulli used this value earlier in his studies on compound interest. That is irrelevant. The statement talks about the first use of the symbol not the first use of the constant. I replaced the original sentence by one that made the position clear. And I added a citation that clearly stated that the first use of the symbol 'b' was by Leibnitz. This has been reverted. I shall restore my edit unless someone can explain why something so obvious needs clarification. OrewaTel ( talk) 06:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, including whole subsections, which means that GA criterion 2, which requires nearly everything to be cited, is not met.
I also think that this article could perhaps use more detail ( Pi is around 4x the length) but I am not an expert. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The redirect 7.3984 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 7 § 7.3984 until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew ( talk) 22:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
In the introduction section, the function ex is characterized as the unique function f that equals its own derivative and satisfies the equation f(0) = 1. The latter part of this is unnecessary information, and implies that there are other, unrelated functions that equal their own derivatives but do not equal 1 at x=0, which is not true. The only other functions that equal their own derivatives are trivial variants of ex like 2ex and ex+1. This would be better rephrased as such, as the fact that the function satisfies f(0) = 1 is not inherently useful to a reader. Pradyung ( talk) 20:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
which is not trueof course it's true: saying "those are just trivial variants" doesn't make them cease to exist. It also has the virtue of being precise and meaningful, whereas your version leaves completely unclear what the phrase "trivial variants" is supposed to mean. -- JBL ( talk) 20:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
It strikes me that the lede of the article spends too much space on various definitions of the constant. Currently two whole paragraphs of the lede are devoted to various representations and definitions. I think these could be summarized in plain English, and details deferred to a later section. ( WP:MTAA warns against too many equations in the lede, and I think they are certainly excessive here.) Thoughts? Tito Omburo ( talk) 23:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect E (mathematical constant has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § E (mathematical constant until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 01:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
We had a discussion as to whether we should say, "e is the base of natural logarithms" or "e is the base of the natural logarithm" and no clear consensus was reached. Nevertheless I thought the agreement was to use the normal English phrase, "base of natural logs." Now this has been reopened by an editor who not only used the phrase, "base of the natural logarithm" but reverted the correction without an explanation. Can we settle this please?
There are an infinity of natural logarithms but they all have one thing in common. If they are natural logarithms then their base is e. If you say 'the natural logarithm' then you mean just one value. But which value? For example the natural logarithm of 2 is 0.69314718…. Its base is e but why choose ln(2) rather than ln(3)? It is much easier to indicate that the base of all natural logarithms is e. Of course the base of the natural logarithm function is e but why use stilted English instead of the common phrase. OrewaTel ( talk) 09:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't really object to the new lede, less the lengthy second paragraph from the old version. I still feel that "base of the natural logarithm" is more than adequately supported, both by regular usage in mathematics and by sources. And scholar actually shows a slight preference for the singular rather than plural: [3], [4]. This, together with the massively more prevalent ghits of the singular, strongly suggests that the singular is typical in English usage. (See also, in complex variables, one talks of the "branch of the logarithm", also, one talks of the "sine and cosine", the "natural exponential", and so forth, it being understood that one is referring to functions.) Note that at one point, you had agreed that "natural logarithm" refers to the unary operator, rather than just its values. As had User:Trovatore, User:Ancheta Wis, and User:Quantling. So, I'm hardly out on a limb: the earlier consensus clearly favored the singular. As Trovatore wrote:
It's difficult to disagree with this. Do you agree? If so, I will restore the old consensus singular. Tito Omburo ( talk) 15:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
In /info/en/?search=Jacob_Bernoulli the year of discovery is stated as 1683 while in this article it is 1685. Can someone clarify the discrepancy. Thanks 192.56.200.12 ( talk) 13:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)