Talk:Routh's theorem

digressions about different editions of Routh's book seem out of scope
Do we really need to have several paragraphs about this? Wouldn't it be sufficient to briefly (1 sentence) cite the 1878 Tripos, and then briefly (another 1–3 sentences) cite the 1891 edition of Routh's book?

Speculations about whether Routh had "met with" the Tripos problem before, speculations about Routh's motivations or state of mind when deciding not to change the footnote for the revised editions of the book, observations about which edition of the book later authors had access to, etc. seem unnecessary, distracting, and out of scope for this article. (Not to mention, not supported by secondary sources.) –jacobolus (t) 06:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This material was added in 2012 by an IP editor, so I can't ping them directly for comment. –jacobolus (t) 06:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)