Talk:Number theory: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>William Hart
mNo edit summary
imported>William Hart
(Comments on the current version)
Line 24: Line 24:


The link to Euclid's Elements links to the periodic table not the book.
The link to Euclid's Elements links to the periodic table not the book.
Although the Chinese remainder theorem was written down in China in the third century CE, I hardly see this as justifying the statement that Chinese mathematicians were studying remainders and congruences in that period.
The statement: "In the next thousand years, Islamic mathematics dealt with some questions related to congruences, while Indian mathematicians of the classical period found the first systematic method for finding integer solutions to quadratic equations", is vague and misleading. It may be argued that the Babylonians were able to solve problems which we would interpret as quadratic equations.


Number theory has historically been motivated by a hodge podge of esoteric problems. The original article which has been blanked was written that way on purpose. [[User:William Hart|William Hart]] 07:27, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
Number theory has historically been motivated by a hodge podge of esoteric problems. The original article which has been blanked was written that way on purpose. [[User:William Hart|William Hart]] 07:27, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 07:44, 6 July 2007


Article Checklist for "Number theory"
Workgroup category or categories Mathematics Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? Yes
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by --AlekStos 09:45, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





The introduction is a little too focused on number systems, and then mixes them up with all other things. Perhaps we should start with a historical introduction - then an enumeration of the main areas and problems of study? Harald Helfgott 13:55, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm inclined to agree. The initial comment about C.F. Gauss seems out of place in an encyclopedia but, just as importantly, unrelated to the rest of the article. What follows is basically a hodge-podge of ideas presented without any context. In fact, I think it's probably a good idea to just blank the article and start over. A historical introduction may be the way to go, but there are other possibilities, such as outlining some of the main areas of number theory: algebraic number fields, zeta-functions and analytic methods, quadratic forms and lattices (along the lines of Minkowski), p-adic fields and local methods, algebraic geometry (elliptic curves and abelian varieties), and maybe a bit about the Langlands program. Of course, the approaches aren't mutually exclusive: I think Scharlau and Opolka ("From Fermat to Minkowski") does a masterful job of weaving together a historical account and a cohesive theoretical framework. I completely wore out one copy of the book as a grad student. Greg Woodhouse 14:20, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
I have effectively blanked the article. Some text was good and could be reused, but, as it will be available as part of previous versions for at least some time, no harm has been done. Let us see what we can do. Do you want to get started? The overall plan of the Wikipedia article seems sensible. I particularly liked its history section - but then that probably deserves its own article. Harald Helfgott 06:49, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

I have started what should remain a brief history section. Edit away. The modern period has not been done yet. Harald Helfgott 06:43, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

- there should probably be a smooth transition to "Subfields" towards the end of the nineteenth century. Harald Helfgott 08:15, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

There are some problems with the new version of the article. The definition of number theory is incorrect. The study of the integers in called arithmetic, which is one very small part of number theory. You are neglecting the analytic aspects of number theory if you take that definition.

The link to Euclid's Elements links to the periodic table not the book.

Although the Chinese remainder theorem was written down in China in the third century CE, I hardly see this as justifying the statement that Chinese mathematicians were studying remainders and congruences in that period.

The statement: "In the next thousand years, Islamic mathematics dealt with some questions related to congruences, while Indian mathematicians of the classical period found the first systematic method for finding integer solutions to quadratic equations", is vague and misleading. It may be argued that the Babylonians were able to solve problems which we would interpret as quadratic equations.

Number theory has historically been motivated by a hodge podge of esoteric problems. The original article which has been blanked was written that way on purpose. William Hart 07:27, 6 July 2007 (CDT)