Talk:E (mathematical constant)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the e (mathematical constant) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | E (mathematical constant) has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Other talk page banners | ||
| |||
GA Reassessment
E (mathematical constant)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
This 2007 listing contains significant uncited material, including whole subsections, which means that GA criterion 2, which requires nearly everything to be cited, is not met.
I also think that this article could perhaps use more detail (Pi is around 4x the length) but I am not an expert. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Three things.
- 1) The assertion that "whole subsections" are uncited is untrue: every subsection has at least one citation inline.
- 2) On the question of detail, the article seems to cover "the main points" as required by GACR; comparison with the massive topic of Pi is inapposite, in the manner of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
- 3) On the unstated issue of whether and how "math" – mathematical working – should be cited, I think that before every single math GA is dragged to GAR, the question should be fully aired on an appropriate Wikipedia forum to obtain consensus. The principle that we don't cite "The sky is blue.[21][22][23]" should hold here, as "all the truths of mathematics are tautologies" (Wittgenstein). In other words, any piece of correct mathematical working, like "6/3 = 2" says no more than "A = A", which is about as "the sky is blue" as it is possible to get. If working is to be disallowed, then it is hard to see how even the best, clearest, and most helpful all-math articles can meeat the criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Chiswick Chap, the reason every subsection has an inline citation is that substantial work has been done over the past few weeks by editors such as XOR'easter and Dedhert.Jr; this was the article's previous state. WP:CALC, which I am fully in agreement with, covers your third point.
- I wholly believe maths articles can meet the criteria—see Derivative, which the same two users recently kept at GA standard. The subsection "computational example" there is uncited and allowed per WP:CALC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. Good to know there's been progress, and it certainly seems to be a good thing for that to be documented on this page also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is good enough to keep. Many thanks to XOR, now very sadly retired, and to Dedhert.Jr. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. Good to know there's been progress, and it certainly seems to be a good thing for that to be documented on this page also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- 3) On the unstated issue of whether and how "math" – mathematical working – should be cited, I think that before every single math GA is dragged to GAR, the question should be fully aired on an appropriate Wikipedia forum to obtain consensus. The principle that we don't cite "The sky is blue.[21][22][23]" should hold here, as "all the truths of mathematics are tautologies" (Wittgenstein). In other words, any piece of correct mathematical working, like "6/3 = 2" says no more than "A = A", which is about as "the sky is blue" as it is possible to get. If working is to be disallowed, then it is hard to see how even the best, clearest, and most helpful all-math articles can meeat the criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
"E̩" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect E̩ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 20 § E̩ until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Infinite product with product notation
Near the bottom of the article, there a representation of e that uses an infinite product, and denotes this with ellipses. I worked out its representation using capital pi product notation, but I don't know if it should be added to the article or not. https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xpvqlhziky This is a link to the product form as simplified as I could make it. I completely understand not including it, but I also think it could benefit the article. I wanted to post this so I could see what other people thought of it. ~2026-16468-24 (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Edit summary note
I meant "an image" and "application section". Need to take a break. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment on 30 digits
@D.Lazard, sorry, what's a "blinf comment"? I assume it's a typo, but I don't know what it's meant to be. Thanks — W.andrea (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry for the typo, I should have written "blind comment". That is a comment, like yours, that can be seen only by reading the source of the article, and is normally not seen by readers. D.Lazard (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- No worries. I thought it might be that, but I couldn't find any usage of "blind comment". You might be thinking of the term "invisible comment". — W.andrea (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- So what makes it not useful? Someone else also had a problem with it btw, but I'm still discussing with them. — W.andrea (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- The square root of two is only distantly related to e, and the number of digits of precision are completely irrelevant.—Anita5192 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- I replied to you personally on your talk page, with more detail. I could move that comment here if it would help consolidate discussion. — W.andrea (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- The square root of two is only distantly related to e, and the number of digits of precision are completely irrelevant.—Anita5192 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Anita5192 § e 30 digitsHi, I didn't understand the edit summary on your revert, but I had put the comment in the wrong place, so maybe that was confusing. I redid the edit, fixed, but by all means revert again if that didn't address your concern. Or I'm happy to self-revert if you want to correct me. — W.andrea (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- Ope, it's already been reverted. — W.andrea (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- The article is about the number e. The number of digits in an approximation has nothing to do with the nature of the number e. Comparing the number of digits in an approximation of e with those of the square root of 2 is completely irrelevant, unless those were the most digits ever calculated, which they are not.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'm still not following. My comment must have been unclear. How did you understand it? — W.andrea (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- The value of e is expressed in the lead to thirty decimal places. Big deal! This has nothing to do with the square root of two.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'm still not really following, so let me explain myself from the top: I was reading about a few different irrational numbers and noticed that they had different numbers of digits given in the lead. Some had way too many, e.g. square root of 7 had 60 digits. Root 2 and e have 30, which I think is a good amount, and these articles probably get the most traffic,* so I rounded the others to 30 digits. Then to try to avoid any future disputes about the number of decimals, I left an invisible comment explaining that 30 was consistent with other articles. I'm guessing that comment was unclear since I don't understand what you're saying.
- * pi and phi use different numbers of digits, but they use different layouts.
- — W.andrea (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- I would not have reverted your invisible comment if it would have been
Please do not increase the number of digits, since 30 is the number of digits that are given in most articles about mathematical constants.
D.Lazard (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)- OK, I see, I wasn't descriptive enough. Thanks.
- For comparison, phi has a similar comment:
PLEASE DO NOT add additional digits; there is a long-standing consensus that they do not add to understanding. Thank you.
- How about this?
Please do not increase the number of digits. 30 digits is standard for articles about irrational numbers; any more is unnecessary.
- — W.andrea (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- I would not have reverted your invisible comment if it would have been
- The value of e is expressed in the lead to thirty decimal places. Big deal! This has nothing to do with the square root of two.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'm still not following. My comment must have been unclear. How did you understand it? — W.andrea (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- The article is about the number e. The number of digits in an approximation has nothing to do with the nature of the number e. Comparing the number of digits in an approximation of e with those of the square root of 2 is completely irrelevant, unless those were the most digits ever calculated, which they are not.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2026 (UTC)