|WikiProject Mathematics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Isn't rule #6 wrong?
Do all the brackets here represent the Legendre symbol? If so, it should say so!
- Johnbibby 18:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
No, only the ones in the definition (and it's stated there). The other brackets represent Jacobi symbols.
- BrunoX 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
is it just me or rule #10 is wrong since it should be stated that m,n must be relativly prime? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's OK. If m and n share a factor, then both sides of the equation are zero. -- EJ 10:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I just cut huge rambling sections of this page, including all the calculations. My objection is that the whole point of the Jacobi symbol is that it is polynomial time computable, and the calculations shown used factorization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- And twice your mass removal has been reverted. There is no consensus here on this talk page for your removal of a huge portion of the article. Discuss it here before you remove it again, please. Ariel♥Gold 00:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I made an account and finished writing up how the Jacobi symbol is calculated. The page actually already had this embedded in the 'motivation' section; it's just difficult to read. At this point, I think my little section supersedes both 'further properties' and 'motivation', but I'll leave it to the wiki consensus....
I would also be interested in seeing areas such as the 'motivation' section being dissolved. Currently, it reads too much like a math lecture, which I think is at odds with WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. It's trying to be more educational, but I think it makes it less readily informative. CountingPine (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I put in the "motivation" section to show how the Legendre symbol can require factorization to calculate, whereas the Jacobi symbol can be calculated as quickly as a gcd.
In fact, I wanted it to be *less* like a typical math lecture, in that most math lectures would simply define the symbol and prove the formulas without giving any reason for doing so.
- The problem is, even if it is a good, "atypical" lecture, it still doesn't read like an encyclopedia article should. While it is good to include information on how it can be calculated easily, it shouldn't be done in that style, and it shouldn't cloud the actual definition of the symbol, as it was. CountingPine (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Rule #6 is incorrect, quadratic reciprocity should be something like..
If both n and m are odd, then (n/m) = (m/n) unless both n and m are congruent to 3 mod 4. In this case, (n/m) = -(m/n). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- That is, in fact, exactly what it says (see the piecewise part on the righthand side). They also have to be positive coprime. Dcoetzee 15:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Removing Claim Made in Image Caption
It said on the image caption that any non-zero residue m mod n must have (m|n)=1. I initially couldn't figure out how to prove this, then I found a counterexample: m=10 is not congruent to 0 mod n=15, and it is congruent to 5^2=25 mod 15, so it is a non-zero residue. However, (10|15)=(10|3)(10|5)=1*0=0, not 1. Thus, I'm removing the claim. Any objections? David815 (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
So 9 has no quadratic residues aside from 0? 2² = 4 doesn't make 4 a quadratic residue? Am I missing something? Quite misleading... 2804:14D:BAA1:3E5:51B2:48F8:7C8A:685A (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Example of calculations
The worked problem begins with "Given that 9907 is prime," but that is unnecessary. The calculation will work merely given that 9907 is odd and positive. Colin McLarty (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)