Talk:Munchausen number

Requested move 04 June 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move to Munchausen number Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Münchhausen number → Munchausen number – Spelling fix. Internet searches confirm that "Munchausen number" is the correct English spelling for this term. – Lemuellio (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Favonian (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm neutral regarding the move, but ample experience shows that removing or adding diacritics is never uncontroversial. Favonian (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment who coined the term? We can see the original uses to see if it has an umlaut or not -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The WP:UCRN policy specifies that "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". So, searching the literature for references to the term should be enough.--Lemuellio (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per Dohn Joe. clearly this is named without the umlaut. It doesn't matter what the historical baron is spelled as, since the baron didn't coin the term. Indeed, we do not spell "New Zealand" as "New Zeeland" do we? Neither is the English word "chief" spelled as it was in the origination language as "chef". These claims about how to spell the original baron have no relevance to the discussion on the name of the term we are discussing here. People name things after other things have no requirement to spell it the same way. And Wikipedia is not the Academie Francaise, having no power to force people to spell it one way or another, we follow what people use. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Baron Münchhausen used the diacritic in his name. ONR (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But Münchhausen did not invent this concept; instead, it's clearly named after the fictional character Baron Munchausen (note the spelling difference, and see the Baron Munchausen article for details on the differentiation between the two).--Lemuellio (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose as silly Münchhausen is the name, if mathematicians use French German or Spanish figures names those names don't change - as some of the better hardback English math books show. They can't avoid showing, because any explanation of the figure has to refer to the Baron. In ictu oculi (talk)
 * Yes, but which Baron? Please refer to the Baron Munchausen article for the difference between the fictional Baron Munchausen (one h, no umlaut) and the real-life Baron von Münchhausen (two hs, umlaut). In context, the name "Munchausen number" clearly refers to the former. Most English-language references to the number reflect this reference correctly by spelling the name "Munchausen."--Lemuellio (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. The fact that native English speakers don't know how to type an accent mark doesn't mean Wikipedia should avoid mentioning they exist. J I P  &#124; Talk 21:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See my comments to the other oppositions above.--Lemuellio (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. The Dutch mathematician who coined the term calls them Munchausen numbers in English, presumably after the fictional baron. Sources are split. The move would also be WP:CONSISTENT with our articles on Baron Munchausen and Munchausen syndrome. Dohn joe (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per Dohn joe's and Lemuellio's accurate analysis above. Real-life Baron von Münchhausen has nothing to do with it, Munchausen number is patently named after Baron Munchausen, without any diacritic and with a single "H", the "strong oppose" votes above should be ignored as inaccurate.  Cavarrone  23:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

zero raised to zero power
as here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Zero_to_the_power_of_zero) is described in detail, 0 raised to 0 = 1 in most cases. now, this article seems to take a different view (per reference 5) but lacks any further explanation to the reasons of this difference. i find it confusing, please, add some explanation (or at least i think the "see also" section could have the link to exponentiation/zero to the power of zero). an explanation (of why this time the axiomatic "zero to the power of zero equals one" should not apply) would be better. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC).


 * You are right; thanks for pointing it out. I was the one who made the edit, and I have now reverted it. I misread it as talking about 00 = 1, rather than the indeed nonstandard definition 00 = 0. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggest merging with Perfect_digit-to-digit invariant
Munchausen number is a synoniem for [Perfect_digit-to-digit invariant], there is no reason to have two articles about the same set of numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.150.13 (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)