Talk:Divisibility: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Barry R. Smith (→Topic Already Exists: new section) |
imported>Peter Schmitt |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== Topic Already Exists == | == Topic Already Exists == | ||
Is there some reason that this topic needed to be created even though the [[divisor]] page already exists? I like nouns referring to objects better than ones referring to relationships, so my preference is that the main page be called [[divisor]]. However the cards fall, I think one of the pages must disappear.[[User:Barry R. Smith|Barry R. Smith]] 19:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | Is there some reason that this topic needed to be created even though the [[divisor]] page already exists? I like nouns referring to objects better than ones referring to relationships, so my preference is that the main page be called [[divisor]]. However the cards fall, I think one of the pages must disappear.[[User:Barry R. Smith|Barry R. Smith]] 19:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
:: I know about the "divisor" page, but "divisibility" is a more general notion which can serve as a "parent topic". "Divisor" is not suitable for this. I agree that, in general, objects are better suited for titles (like [[countable set]], not "countability"), but this is different, I think. "Divisibility" or "divisibility theory" are quite usual as titles for chapters in number theory books. <br> Moreover, I think that [[divisor]] may still serve a purpose for the elementary arithmetic meaning of "divior" in a division and in a fraction (and to "disambiguate" more advanced uses), topics that do not fit on the divisibility page. [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 17:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:32, 23 July 2009
Property 4 is currently: "if a divides b and c then it also divides a+b." Shouldn't the last sum be b+c? If not, then we do not need c, just: if a divides b, then it also divides a+b and a-b and ... Sandy Harris 10:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- A typo, thanks. (Is it against CZ politeness to simply correct this?) Peter Schmitt 11:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Topic Already Exists
Is there some reason that this topic needed to be created even though the divisor page already exists? I like nouns referring to objects better than ones referring to relationships, so my preference is that the main page be called divisor. However the cards fall, I think one of the pages must disappear.Barry R. Smith 19:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I know about the "divisor" page, but "divisibility" is a more general notion which can serve as a "parent topic". "Divisor" is not suitable for this. I agree that, in general, objects are better suited for titles (like countable set, not "countability"), but this is different, I think. "Divisibility" or "divisibility theory" are quite usual as titles for chapters in number theory books.
Moreover, I think that divisor may still serve a purpose for the elementary arithmetic meaning of "divior" in a division and in a fraction (and to "disambiguate" more advanced uses), topics that do not fit on the divisibility page. Peter Schmitt 17:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- I know about the "divisor" page, but "divisibility" is a more general notion which can serve as a "parent topic". "Divisor" is not suitable for this. I agree that, in general, objects are better suited for titles (like countable set, not "countability"), but this is different, I think. "Divisibility" or "divisibility theory" are quite usual as titles for chapters in number theory books.