Talk:Mathematical constant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
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:
C Class
High Importance
 Field:  Basics



Explanation of MRB constant changes[edit]

I see that someone posted the MRB Constant in the table. Per WP:AB, in clear-cut case, I corrected the year First Described and # of Known Digits. Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the documented first time described.Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to retrieve an earlier documented time.Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I made corrections for a few pressing issues in the table.Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

MRB[edit]

I doubt the MRB constant should be here (or in List of numbers). Reasons for problems:

  1. The "name" (which should obviously be ) is unsourced and improbable, even if the constant itself had a WP:RS, which I haven't found, yet.
  2. All the other constants in the table have some mathematical literature. This one seems to have 1 mention in a book (not by name), mention in OEIS (again, not by name), mention in papers by the author, and one blog entry which seems to be the source of the name. There is an arXiv paper by someone other than the author, but it also doesn't indicate a reason why the constant was used in the paper.

Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

In the article, where it explains where the name comes from, there is a reference to Plouffe's list of constants where he named the MRB Constant. Also, I have definitely shown, in the MRB constant talk page, there is due weight of evidence that the name is used by other people, in other places (where, "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content." ).
I quote from the general notability guidelines:
Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article.
The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception :that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or :list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburns (talkcontribs) 21:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
in the arXiv paper, the connection between the MRB constant and the oscillatory integral is found in the divergent series that sums (-1)^n*n^(1/n) as identified by Finch on P.58 here [1].Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, for a constant to be listed here, it normally requires more "notability" than than the WP:NUMBER guidelines, although not necessarily than that the article exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
In regard the latest set of tags, the symbol-string CMRB is what I consider dubious, even if it's called the "MRB constant". Importance is still questioned, even if all the sources provided are legitimate and reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Square root of 5: only "1,000,000" digits?[edit]

Since the Golden ratio is known to billions of digits (at least 17 billion per that article though this article suggests it's actually 100 billion), shouldn't the Square root of 5 also be known to the same billions of digits? After all:

Glenn L (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Rydberg constant[edit]

Why is the Rydberg constant on the side of a page titled Mathematical constant? --Dgroseth (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. It was used as an illustration of notation, but it's not a well chosen example for this page - I have replaced it with Champernowne constant. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Mn/Me mass ratio in terms of Zeta(3) and the Golden ratio[edit]

Despite the simplicity of this approximation : if we refer to the NIST table the value of Mn/Me = 1838.6836605 and the error being 0.0000011. Now this approximation is approx. is way too far from the real value to be considered serious. The value is 36/((2+2*5^(1/2))^(1/2)-2*Zeta(3))^2 = 1838.691257454... so the error is : 0.007...


the error ratio is about 7000 times the standard error, please refer to the NIST 

document for explanations http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plouffe (talkcontribs) 23:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Order[edit]

Is there any specific order for the table (beyond having the most known at top, obviously)? Magister Mathematicae (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sierpiński's constant[edit]

I was checking some of constants vs Wolfram Alpha, for Sierpiński's constant, WA returns 0.822825249 ... whic is completely different than the article lists here, I have no insight into the discrepancy.--Billymac00 (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathworld con--Billymac00 (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)firms Wikipedia ...

Add Negative One[edit]

I find it funny how the table of constants includes i, but it fails to include -1. -1 is more important than i, as it introduces negative numbers, the reciprocal, inverse functions and inverting in general, and its i squared. There is no reason why -1 shouldn't be in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.222.145.211 (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

tau alias 360 on a plane, would be nice to see too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.64.22.253 (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

on a related note, the intro says that constants are "usually a real number", is that notable? Maybe a couple thousand years in the future there will be as many unreal numbers that are significant constants, but at the current state of our development of mathematical knowledge I don't think it is intro worthy to break up that sentence to say that most of them are real.

combined constants?[edit]

It would seem like there would be a section on combined constants for example e^pi or 2pi. John W. Nicholson (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Golden Ratio Nonsense[edit]

This article is suggesting that there is some universal law that makes the Golden Ratio some sort thing that all possible processes in universe tend toward as they strive for beauty. This is complete nonsense (my edits were reverted).Maneesh (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Zeising's claims do seem exaggerated. This would be irrelevant if there was clear evidence that his comments are eminently notable. Is there such evidence? Tkuvho (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The article isn't suggesting anything - it is simply giving a NPOV and sourced statement of Zeising's writings. The role of Fibonacci numbers and the golden ratio in phyllotaxis is well documented. The rest of Zeising's ideas may be difficult to believe, but remember our yardstick is verifiability, not truth. Gandalf61 (talk)
There is a long history of relating phyllotaxis to the Fibonacci sequence and to the golden ratio. This paper has a nice summary of a few of the historical approaches to the subject. I don't know that Zeising was the main or most famous proponent of this idea; there seem to have been quite a few people involved in this over the years. Among mainstream mathematicians, HSM Coxeter published a few papers:
  1. Coxeter, H. S. M. "The Golden Section and Phyllotaxis." Ch. 11 in Introduction to Geometry, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley, 1969.
  2. Coxeter, H. S. M. "The Role of Intermediate Convergents in Tait's Explanation for Phyllotaxis." J. Algebra 10, 167-175, 1972.
  3. Coxeter, H. S. M. "The Golden Section, Phyllotaxis, and Wythoff's Game." Scripta Mathematica 19, 135-143, 1953.
(refs courtesy of of the MathWorld page on phyllotaxis). Thus, whether you or I believe the assertions of the significance of the golden ratio in phyllotaxis is irrelevant--enough scientists and mathematicians have looked at this and published in reliable sources that we should report on it in the Golden section article, if not this article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The article quotes Zeising (no doubt accurately) but doesn't suggest what the current consensus of his claims are (which is false). Nothing we know today suggests that the golden ratio has anything to do with human anatomy (let alone "all structures"): " all structures, forms and proportions, whether cosmic or individual, organic or inorganic, acoustic or optical; which finds its fullest realization, however, in the human form." Maneesh (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
In my view, the section in this article should only give a brief introduction to the golden ratio as a mathematical constant without giving any undue weight to Zeising or observations in nature in general. This can be developed in detail in the main article golden ratio. I'd suggest moving the paragraphs in question to Golden ratio#Applications and observations and to include some material from Golden ratio#Mathematics in its place. Isheden (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This sounds like a good compromise to me. --Mark viking (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I noticed that lowercase greek phi (φ) vs. uppercase greek phi (Φ) is not consistent in the section (compare source to what you are seeing when reading this talk page..no doubt browser specific), and doesn't seem to render consistently from source page (I see a lowercase phi in source that is uppercase when rendered). I presume this is a well known issue with greek characters and wikipedia, is there a good way to fix this? The section doesn't mention that both forms are used.Maneesh (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge? Name change?[edit]

Is this article redundant with "List of numbers" and should be merged into it?

Also, if no on merger, on seeing the redundancy of the title with "Constant (mathematics)", I am wondering if there is a problem changing it to "Notable mathematical constants", "Important mathematical constants", or something else?

John W. Nicholson (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In my view, the last two sections of this article should be merged with some table or list of mathematical constants; the rest of the article should be kept with the present name. The article Constant (mathematics) is clearly very basic and I think it should be merged with Variable (mathematics) to a new article Constants and variables. Any content from the old article constant term (presently redirects to constant (mathematics)) could be merged with polynomial or possibly algebraic expression. Isheden (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, for the two section which have the mathematical constants, I agree that they should be merged with List of numbers, but and that would lead to this page being hollow and not much of a reason for having an article here. As for the rest, you are going to have to have a better argument for merging Constant (mathematics) with Variable (mathematics) to make a new article Constants and variables. To me these are two different mathematics concepts which can hold there own in separate articles. At the same time, if you can make a page where you show that these two concepts can be merged and hold all of the related distinct concepts (like coefficient, parameter, or index), I would like to see it. But Constant (mathematics) and Variable (mathematics) should be where you work on that merger. --John W. Nicholson (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
List of numbers is a list of Wikipedia articles according to the lead, therefore the tables in this article would not fit naturally there. If there is no natural target at present I would leave the sections here for now. However, the article Constant (mathematics) is redundant in my view. Of course, constants and variables are different concepts, but they are naturally presented together since they complement each other. Have a look at Constant (mathematics) with Variable (mathematics) and you'll see that both of them describe variable vs. constant in the lead. It would be natural to describe them in one article just as Dependent and independent variables or Free variables and bound variables are described in one article, because a constant is defined in contrast to a variable and vice versa. I don't see any natural reason to merge other concepts such as parameter or index with that article. The rationale here is to avoid large overlap between articles, see WP:Merging. Isheden (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
By the way, have a look at algebraic expression for an article that contains various related concepts. That article could easily be expanded. Isheden (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

2, tau & j[edit]

Perhaps all "interesting numbers" should be included?

On a more serious note, number 2 deserves a place as really quite notable - the first (prime) multiple, cardinality of the smallest divided set, the basis of 'even' numbers, the base of binary representation, of duality, the exponent of area, Euler characteristic of any convex polyhedron, and so on. It's just that it seems to be there almost all the time.

A contributor above suggested the inclusion of Tau τ = 2π ; I'd agree. Tau seems to be sidelined on WP; Tau_(2π)#In_popular_culture is almost entirely about π (which has its own page Pi). To be fair, adoption of τ = 2π is something of a minority interest - perhaps consensus considers it to be irrational, but nevertheless it has minor notability.

If i is notable as square root of -1, then so is j = 1/2+i(3^-2)/2, the major complex cube root of 1, solution to x^3=1 {the other roots being 1, & 1/2-i(3^-2)/2}. Of use in engineering, I distantly recall.

Corrigenda: I see in the table, "# of known digits" for 0, 1, i are each shown as "N/A". One might be of the opinion that is incorrect. Also it is unclear to me what the order of that table is supposed to be - after re-sorting, I didn't manage to return to the pristine order except by re-loading. Could we know the rationale? And should imaginary constants be in another table, or come first?

One is one and one is one (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

fractal approximations to some famous constants[edit]

I have calculated the fractal approximations to most of the constants from this article and they can be found at this link Chrisdecorte (talk) 08:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Digits of pi and e[edit]

I added extra digits of pi and e. Timo3 11:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Glineman's constant[edit]

I have found a new constant, Glineman's constant. Here are the first 100 digits. 0.7925041323164429323092398771713448225248095705293785692173351609518900063162775922847330033658820341... John Glineman (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide more details. What is the constant for, where is it cited, what evidence is there that it is well known? Thank you — Leegrc (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I invented it! John Glineman (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

MRB constant gif[edit]

There is a nice gif for the MRB constant done by Ignacitum. Do you think it can find a place on the Mathematical constant page?

First 100 terms of the MRB constant

Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Move protection[edit]

Why is this talk page move protected? Timo3 14:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Formant convention for representation[edit]

I came here to find what format should be used to represent constants. For example, for matrix, uppercase and bold is preferred. I read somewhere that for constants should be used lowercase and upright format, but not sure of that.

The article needs to be more specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.50.199 (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Pi definition[edit]

I think the definition of pi is wrong: "The constant π (pi) has a natural definition in Euclidean geometry (the ratio between the circumference and radius of a circle),"79.19.51.136 (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Famous constants sorted[edit]

https://plus.google.com/106470124546166473435/posts/JCD8MfhDLNL or: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311964993_Famous_constants_sorted_and_with_fractal_approximations?ev=prf_pub Chrisdecorte (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

OEIS sequences[edit]

There should be a list of OEIS sequences for each constant. Bobby Jacobs (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Tao not ready[edit]

I'm considering removing Tao from the "Short List" this page's short list of constants until proper references may accompany it. The given link actually only goes to a generic reference to the Greek letter with some disambiguation toward the constant. Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mathematical constant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Finch, Steven. "Errata and Addenda to Mathematical Constants" (PDF). people.fas.harvard.edu. Harvard. Retrieved 11 January 2015.