No edit summary |
→Recent reverts: new section |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
"is a product of powers of variables". Do these have to be nonzero integral powers? Is x√x a monomial? What about 1/x ?[[User:Gphilip|Gphilip]] ([[User talk:Gphilip|talk]]) 08:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC) |
"is a product of powers of variables". Do these have to be nonzero integral powers? Is x√x a monomial? What about 1/x ?[[User:Gphilip|Gphilip]] ([[User talk:Gphilip|talk]]) 08:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
:The first sentence says "in the context of polynomials". Thus, implicitly, non negative integer exponents are assumed. I agree that it would be better to make this assumption explicit. On the other hand monomials with negative exponents are considered in the context of [[Laurent polynomial]]s and monomials with rational numbers as exponents are considered in the context pf [[Puiseux series]]. I'll edit the lead accordingly. [[User:D.Lazard|D.Lazard]] ([[User talk:D.Lazard|talk]]) 09:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC) |
:The first sentence says "in the context of polynomials". Thus, implicitly, non negative integer exponents are assumed. I agree that it would be better to make this assumption explicit. On the other hand monomials with negative exponents are considered in the context of [[Laurent polynomial]]s and monomials with rational numbers as exponents are considered in the context pf [[Puiseux series]]. I'll edit the lead accordingly. [[User:D.Lazard|D.Lazard]] ([[User talk:D.Lazard|talk]]) 09:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Recent reverts == |
|||
{{u|The enemies of god}} has done a major revision of the article. This revision includes |
|||
* Removal of essential information, namely the existence in the literature of two different, although related, definitions of a monomial. |
|||
* Introduction in the body of the article of external links which should be removed per [[WP:ELNO]], even if they were in a section "External links". Also introduction of a link to a dab page |
|||
* Introduction of contradiction between two consecutive paragraph: In a paragraph is is said that 6 and <math>-7x^5</math> are monomials, and, the next paragraph asserts that, in the case of one variable, a monomial is either 1 or a power of the variable with a positive integer as an exponent (solving this contradiction requires considering the two different definitions, whose description has been removed by the editor) |
|||
* Introduction of a terminology that is uncommon in mathematics, and therefore confusing ("lone variable") |
|||
* Introduction of a terminology ("atomic term") that is not defined, nor linked, irrelevant here, and too [[WP:TECHNICAL]] for this article (this is a term of mathematical logic). |
|||
* Confusing use of two different meanings of "term" in the same sentence: "atomic term" refers to terms of a theory in logic, and later in the sentence, "term" is used as a synonymous of "summand". |
|||
This is not a complete list of the issues of this edit, but is sufficient to show that it makes the article much worst than it was. Thus this edit cannot be accepted. |
|||
I have reverted this edit twice. I have also opened a thread in the talk page of the editor, and warned him of the [[WP:3RR]] rule. In each case, "the enemies" has restored his edit, without any comment here and in talk pages (here, mine, or his). |
|||
Thus, as this editor seems not accept discussing, I'll revert him again, and if he continue to edit warring, I'll notify this behavior to Administrators' noticeboard. [[User:D.Lazard|D.Lazard]] ([[User talk:D.Lazard|talk]]) 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:33, 17 January 2019
Mathematics Start‑class Low‑priority | ||||||||||
|
old comments
What contradiction(s?) as implied by the "may not be consistent" arises due to the allowance of coefficients?
The monomials in one unknown X are therefore the powers Xn for n = 0, 1, 2,...
Doesn't that "0" imply that coefficients are permitted?
It implies that 1 is a monomial.
Charles Matthews 14:58, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Right, right, I was just coming back to remove my dumb comment :)
'Diverge' - an English subjunctive, no?
Charles Matthews 15:20, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry. Didn't realize it was subjunctive.
Definition: what kind of powers?
"is a product of powers of variables". Do these have to be nonzero integral powers? Is x√x a monomial? What about 1/x ?Gphilip (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- The first sentence says "in the context of polynomials". Thus, implicitly, non negative integer exponents are assumed. I agree that it would be better to make this assumption explicit. On the other hand monomials with negative exponents are considered in the context of Laurent polynomials and monomials with rational numbers as exponents are considered in the context pf Puiseux series. I'll edit the lead accordingly. D.Lazard (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Recent reverts
The enemies of god has done a major revision of the article. This revision includes
- Removal of essential information, namely the existence in the literature of two different, although related, definitions of a monomial.
- Introduction in the body of the article of external links which should be removed per WP:ELNO, even if they were in a section "External links". Also introduction of a link to a dab page
- Introduction of contradiction between two consecutive paragraph: In a paragraph is is said that 6 and are monomials, and, the next paragraph asserts that, in the case of one variable, a monomial is either 1 or a power of the variable with a positive integer as an exponent (solving this contradiction requires considering the two different definitions, whose description has been removed by the editor)
- Introduction of a terminology that is uncommon in mathematics, and therefore confusing ("lone variable")
- Introduction of a terminology ("atomic term") that is not defined, nor linked, irrelevant here, and too WP:TECHNICAL for this article (this is a term of mathematical logic).
- Confusing use of two different meanings of "term" in the same sentence: "atomic term" refers to terms of a theory in logic, and later in the sentence, "term" is used as a synonymous of "summand".
This is not a complete list of the issues of this edit, but is sufficient to show that it makes the article much worst than it was. Thus this edit cannot be accepted.
I have reverted this edit twice. I have also opened a thread in the talk page of the editor, and warned him of the WP:3RR rule. In each case, "the enemies" has restored his edit, without any comment here and in talk pages (here, mine, or his).
Thus, as this editor seems not accept discussing, I'll revert him again, and if he continue to edit warring, I'll notify this behavior to Administrators' noticeboard. D.Lazard (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)