Talk:Udo of Aachen
|WikiProject Fictional characters||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Middle Ages||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
AUGH, it turned out to be an April Fool's joke, and I got caught!
This is better than anything I've seen in the "Journal of Irreproducible Results" <grin> BruceMiller
The first four or five paragraphs of this article are awful. What in the world is being said?? Please put things in context.
- Seconded This should explain right off the bat that it was an April Fool's hoax, then go into detail. Also I'm not sure it's good to list birth/death dates for fictional people as if they were real.
- Damit I fell for the whole dam thing.. WinterSpw 05:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Where is the actual picture?
I remember seeing the picture of this a while ago, my math teacher showed it to me. It's like in the background or something, maybe it's the Morning Star? I'd really like to find it.
- Follow the links in the references. `'Míkka 23:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Categories birth and dead
Calculating points of a Mandelbrot set "routine" for people of the time
"Another aspect of the deception was that it was very common for pre-20th century mathematicians to spend incredible amounts of time on hand calculations such as a logarithm table or trigonometric functions. Calculating all of the points for a Mandelbrot set is a comparable activity that would seem tedious today but would be routine for people of the time."
The fictional monk belongs to the 1200s, at which time Roman numerals were still used in Europe. (Arabic numerals only became widely known as late as the 15th century.) Also, complex numbers, required to calculate the points of the Mandelbrot set, were not invented until the 16th century. 188.8.131.52 (talk)
- Maybe this should be reworded to say that it *would seem* like the same sort of routine calculation to modern readers as the ones they were already doing at that time. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- The original article claims him to have adopted Arabic numerals for his own use. Also, if you think of the complex numbers in polar form, it becomes a little more believable, as then taking z to z2 is just doubling the angle and squaring the modulus (both doable with geometrical methods), and adding c simply completes a parallelogram. (It would also make the whole enterprise somewhat less tedious, although it is so tedious to begin with that it really doesn't help much.) But then we lose the nice touch about the "spiritual" and "profane" parts of z corresponding to Re(z) and Im(z). Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)