Anonymous user
Talk:Taxicab numbers: Difference between revisions
m
→Not how Wolfram defines Taxicab numbers: added wording to make it clear what the "alternative definition" refers to.
m (→tidying up wording in the task description/requirements: corrected a typo.) |
m (→Not how Wolfram defines Taxicab numbers: added wording to make it clear what the "alternative definition" refers to.) |
||
Line 2:
In http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TaxicabNumber.html it says a Taxicab number has to be defined n ways, not just 2 ways. So at minimum, this may be a bad title. --[[User:TimToady|TimToady]] ([[User talk:TimToady|talk]]) 05:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
: Yes, I'm aware that Wolfram's MathWorld (TM) defines taxicab numbers differently than OEIS does (well, only in part). OEIS also used this alternative definition (which MathWorld uses) as A11541. OEIS entry A1235 is the one that is used for a model: ''Taxi-cab numbers: sums of 2 cubes in more than 1 way''. I specifically noted that this (more or less) is the definition used here in this task. If OEIS defines it thusly, I saw no reason not to use that name --- albeit there are two different definitions, but that isn't unusual to have multiple (and/or conflicting) definitions. The major difference is that the OEIS A1235 sequence definition omits the (non-)usage of negative numbers (for the cubes), but from the context, he (or they) only used positive integers when generating that OEIS list. Using the OEIS A11541 definition would be beyond the scope of most programs or computers for most, I would think, the numbers almost look rarer than hen's teeth. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
:: P.S. I don't mind someone changing my quotes/wording (in the talk sections) if there is are typos, misspellings, or bad or outdated links, but not the wording or the look-and-form. After all, the good Samaritan thing is to make the original intent clear and not obfuscated with my bad spelling and/or typos. I was given the impression that my "talk-section" words aren't to be (or shouldn't be) edited and/or reformatted, or in someone's words, inviolate, immutable. I would put things like italicizing, bold facing (it that a word?), superscripting/subscripting and the like into this category. I have corrected misspellings in the past, but have been told that those changes were <strike>possible</strike> possibly inappropriate. I prefer that my paragraphs have sentences with a double blank after each sentence, and other stuff such as keywords, keyphrases, mathematical notations, and such thingys for readability --- unless you think that '''&nbsp;''' has some other meaning or use. I hate to revert changes to other people's changes to my wording (either in content or form). I assume the intent of the changes is to make my words easier to read, but it's my choice to have more blanks to make the words, phrases, mathematical expressions, or sentences easier to peruse. Removing them from my wording doesn't do so in my opinion, and I'd like the intent of my words or phrasing to remain unaltered. A couple of blanks hither and thither shouldn't be a bother. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
| |||