Talk:Proofs involving the totient function
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
On 16 December 2007, Proofs involving the totient function was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Explanation of proof step in inequalities?
I don't quite understand this step in the proof in the inequality section:
Why is it true? I tried several different things but they didn't come up with this. Is it based on some previous or well-known result? Thanks. Deco 00:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hello there, just use
BTW, I am not sure replacing n by nk really improves readability. We should keep it simple. Having said what n is in the introduction to the proof should suffice. Hope this helps. -Zahlentheorie 11:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Expert required
This page needs attention from an expert to write an introductory essay and preface each proof with an explanation of the strategy that will be used. -Zahlentheorie 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. There is still a bit of math obsification in the proof, there are spots where it could me made a little clearer, and slightly easier to understand. Would you qualify me as an expert if: I am an undergrad, that has taken my course work in Finite math ( got an A+ ), and advanced Finite ( got an A, this freaking class was mostly proofs and foudation stuff ), and took the graduate series class, where this theorm was presented. I took the class, at the recommendation of the Finite Math teacher! I am pursuiing this line of study for doing graduate study in Galois theory. Let me know what your opinion on qualifications is. 67.188.118.64 (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Number of integers up to n and prime to a given m
The inclusion-exclusion argument in this proof needs to be changed to an argument involving an interchange of the order of summation, as in the orginal document. -Zahlentheorie 22:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC) Removed the proof since the one in the source document is more elegant. -Zahlentheorie 11:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Per Wikipedia:Subpages, this article should be named Proofs involving the Totient function, not Totient function/Proofs. I'd do the move myself, but this just hit Slashdot, so I'll just err to the side of caution here. --Phirazo 06:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Woudlnt it be better to have a more grafic slashdot effect icon? 67.188.118.64 (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The word "totient" shouldn't be capitalized. So maybe Proofs involving the totient function. --Zundark (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- The new title makes it even more clear that the topic itself isn't notable. Suggest transwiki to wikisource, assuming licensing compatibility. Dekimasuよ! 04:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citations
Would an expert please decide what to do about the citation-needed tags, of which there is one on every line of the second proof? -Zahlentheorie (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
