# Talk:e (mathematical constant)

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.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
 GA Class
 Top Importance
Field: Basics
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
A selected article on the Mathematics Portal.

## Equality to Pi in the representing of the first dozens digits

Hello! In the entry of Pi in Wikipedia there is a representation of the first 100 (decimal) digits of Pi. When I tried to do the same for "e", and to enlarge its representation from 50 digits to 100, my edit was deleted due to "50 digits representation is too long already", in these words or similar words. And I want to ask - Is Pi more important or respected then e? Is its representation more important than of e? Is its accuracy more important in the real life, in science and in general perspective?

What is the law which determine 50 digits of e is too long but 100 digits of Pi is ok? Respectively yours,

Ram Zaltsman (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the article pi also shows only 50 digits, as far as I can tell, and only a few in the actual lead of the article. In answer to the last question, as a general rule "too many" means enough to mess up line formats and navboxes on people with common browser configurations. The encyclopedia is meant to be read by human beings, so having massive numbers of digits is not really much of a consideration. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

## Doubtful entry

There's a relatively new addition by an IP to the table of in the Known Digits section. Google turns up no results other than Wikipedia-related links for this supposed "David Galilei Natale" who discovered 1,048,576,000,000 digits in November. Should that entry be deleted? I tend to just make spelling corrections on here, so I'm not sure what exactly to do. Thanks. Airbag190 (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If you cannot find a source, or the IP has not provided one, then yes, it should be removed. `-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}` 12:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed the entry, the doubtful entry was:
| 2014 November 15 ||align=right| 1,048,576,000,000 || David Galilei Natale .
I could not find any source (and it was relativly not much more digits than the previous entry either , just 5% more but that is a beside) WillemienH (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

## Italic vs. Roman

I removed the following chuck of recently added text:

Although it is not uncommon to see e printed in italic type ("e"), according to the recommendations of standards bodies such as ISO, NIST and IUPAC, it should not be (because it represents a fundamental constant, not a variable), and rather should always be printed roman ("e").[1][2][3]

References
1. ^ Mills, I. M.; Metanomski, W. V. (December 1999), On the use of italic and roman fonts for symbols in scientific text (PDF), IUPAC Interdivisional Committee on Nomenclature and Symbols, retrieved 9 November 2012. This document was slightly revised in 2007 and full text included in the Guidelines For Drafting IUPAC Technical Reports And Recommendations and also in the 3rd edition of the IUPAC Green Book.
2. ^ See also Typefaces for Symbols in Scientific Manuscripts, NIST, January 1998. This cites the family of ISO standards 31-0:1992 to 31-13:1992.
3. ^ "More on Printing and Using Symbols and Numbers in Scientific and Technical Documents". Chapter 10 of NIST Special Publication 811 (SP 811): Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI). 2008 Edition, by Ambler Thompson and Barry N. Taylor. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, U.S.A.. March 2008. 76 pages. This cites the ISO standards 31-0:1992 and 31-11:1992, but notes "Currently ISO 31 is being revised [...]. The revised joint standards ISO/IEC 80000-1—ISO/IEC 80000-15 will supersede ISO 31-0:1992—ISO 31-13."

I find this rather opinionated and these references may be outdated, but they do state e should be roman and so may warrant a discussion here. `-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}` 09:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the text is problematic. For someone publishing a NIST document, one must obviously adhere to NIST standards. For someone publishing an AMS document, someone must adhere to those standards, etc. These standards are not the same. Contrary to what many believe, NIST does not actually dictate standards for all scientific best-practices. This is especially true of mathematics, which by necessity is rather flexible in the symbols that it uses. Overall such recommendations are irreflective of actual established practice in mathematics publishing. (More than that, in this case the recommendations do not even seem to be self-consistent: for example, in the IUPAC recommendation curl is bold-face but grad is standard face. Clearly mathematicians were not consulted in the preparation of these alleged "standards".) Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
WP obviously chooses its own conventions (MOS), as it should. Agreed, such a recommendation does not belong. However, a section about notations that occur in general, and which bodies recommend/mandate each notation would not be out of place. The arguments advanced by the references are not without merit, but these should be reported and not adopted as a recommendation in a WP article. —Quondum 18:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

## unfortunate page title

Isn't it true that the constant is lower-case e rather than upper-case E? If so, this seems to be a bit of a flaw in the way that wikipedia displays page names..

JMWt (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

And it appears as such at the top of the page (and this one). It’s a technical limitation of Mediawiki, that it normally doesn’t distinguish between upper and lower case for the first letter of a page name and displays it as upper case. So Cat and cat are the same article (but CAT isn't). Mostly this doesn’t matter, as most names are capitalised and common words like 'cat' are normally capitalised when used as a heading. For exceptions such as this which only make sense as lower case the magic word {{DISPLAYTITLE}} can be used (that's actually a template, but it does the same thing and is how it looks when editing).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, perhaps I am being imprecise, but the url for this page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_%28mathematical_constant%29 - perhaps it is just my machine, but for me that displays as a capital-E JMWt (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Also that the very top of this talkpage, the wikiproject templates call it "E (mathematical constant)" JMWt (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This is not normally anything we'd worry about as editors. The talk pages and their templates do not have the same degree of format fine-tuning as do the main pages. The purpose of the talk page is to talk about the topic, not to present the topic, and historically editors have seen the wiki markup codes directly when editing. Since the names of articles are case-insensitive to the first letter, and one needs to be aware of that as an editor, one tends to not even notice this. I don't think that it would make sense to change the URL to have a lower-case 'e' in the address bar. With the move to a more WYSIWYG editing interface, perhaps someone might consider tuning the talk page templates, but I would not bet on it. —Quondum 15:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

## The reference to April 1 1994 is simply wrong...

When one actually reads the reference to the 1,000,000 record of April, 1994, it says that the computation was done to 10,000,000 NOT the claimed record of just 1,000,000!!!! Correct this error please!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.98.78 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2015‎

Only the first million were checked, so the reference is correct. `-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}` 22:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)