User talk:Gandalf61/Archive17

Fractran
I must ask you to immediately stop revert my edits on the Fractran article and start discussion this subject instead. Please explain why you think that your version is correct and not mine. TraxPlayer (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

-

You asked for comments on your edits so please have a look at this edit:

I have just discovered that the $$\tfrac{1}{7}$$ fraction was missing. Why did you comment that you reverted back to Conway version ? I strongly believe based that Conway version included the important $$\tfrac{1}{7}$$.

TraxPlayer (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. However, the sequence of 14 fractions given in Conway & Guy The Book of Numbers and in Havil Nonplussed does not include 1/7. We can't just change stuff because we think it is wrong - we have to stick to cited sources. I have removed 1/7 from the sequence in the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Also note that the version given in Project Euler Problem 308 is different from the Conway & Guy and Havil version because it ends in 13/11, 15/2, 1/7, 55/1 instead of 13/11, 15/14, 15/2, 55/1. Probably achieves the same result, but the article should stick to cited sources, and published sources are more reliable than a web page. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I found a primary source on the fractran program. Written solely by Conway. And it contains the 1/7 version.

Please see this page from the book |Open Problems in Communication and Computation. This book is from 1987 and contains the original paper by Conway. That must the best primary source. The Book of Numbers can't be primary source. I believe that Guy wrote most of the book including the Fractran part. What is your opinion on the picture from page 116 from Mrs. Roberts book? TraxPlayer (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And here the first page on the original Conway paper -

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TraxPlayer (talk • contribs) 22:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Erdős number information
Hi! Thank you for all of your contributions! :) I noticed that some guy has been going around Wikipedia deleting Erdős number information, which I think is unjustifiable.  I just reverted one such deletion, explaining why.  Your point of view on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Spigot algorithm
Thank you, your example about log 2 is great! 185.19.20.240 (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)