Talk:Pandiagonal magic square

[Untitled]
See also: Talk:Diabolic square (discussion prior to merging)

The better (and old and well established) name is "pandiagonal magic square". This name describes what it is much better. I recommend renaming the article, but it's too much work for me now because of all the links. Zaslav 02:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a number of names for such squares: panmagic square, pandiagonal square, pandiagonal magic square, diabolic square (see the talk there), diabolical square, diabolical magic square. And welcome to Wikipedia.  There are things called redirects.  And when you rename a page, it automatically creates one from the old name to the new one.  And even if it didn't, it would be silly if we didn't create it.  And so links have no effect on the work of renaming the article (with the exception of double redirects) - they're just another piece of work that can be done in due course if need be. -- Smjg 14:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm - so all of panmagic square, pandiagonal square, pandiagonal magic square, diabolic square, diabolical square, diabolical magic square should exist as articles or redirects? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the term nasik. This was first coined by Frost in 1878 and the definition refined by planck in 1905 to mean a hypercube in any dimension where all lines sume correctly. - I removed the link date_magic-square which is only redirected anyway to magic square. - I added a link to my magic square site. --Harvey Heinz (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The diagram in the "4×4 pandiagonal magic squares" is backwards
As drawn, the diagram implies that Semimagic square requires all properties listed there, while the Most-perfect magic square only requires that 2x2 squares sum to the same number. Haxton2 (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)