81:
71:
53:
292:@Wcherowi: I find your revert a little callous; it would have been nice if you had discussed it here first. You reverted my edit because it was OR, but the proof you've restored was itself OR (check the history for yourself). You've also ignored my numerous points about errors in the article. Surely you should have at least deleted the nonsensical "Extensions" section and changed the theorem statement to actually make sense after reverting?
22:
316:
previous version as being a more elementary for an elementary formulation (as are the similar proofs of
Tattersall and of Leveque). It might be better to have a comment on the relationship to unique factorisation for polynomials over a field and the validity of the theorem in general as another section.
343:
and my duty as an editor is to remove it - no ifs, ands or buts, discussion was not required. I reverted, rather than fix the problems, because that was the easiest thing to do. I do not see why I should have to spend my time cleaning up your work –due to your not following (understanding?) Knowledge
276:
Also, the "Extensions" sentence about the same theorem and proof being true over arbitrary fields like R made absolutely no sense, so I deleted it. The theorem should have some generalization to number fields with essentially the same proof and tweaked assumptions; that might be of interest if anyone
173:
I admit the proof might be able to use some rewriting, but you don't need reliable sources for proofs if they're clear and any theorems referenced are sourceable. That's the beauty of math. :). This one, though, does not necessarily fulfill that requirement. I had to prove it using Euclid's Lemma for
480:
For what it's worth, I have no interest in writing up someone else's proof of such a basic fact; it takes literally minutes to come up with one. I feel
Wcherowi is not listening to me and is being confrontational, which has turned me off from editing this article further, sorry. Thanks for your
382:
mandates the opposite. The IP's proof is indeed valid, and I'm sure it can be sourced, but I prefer the proof of the two references, which is neither the earlier (unsourced as I pointed out over a year ago) nor the later version. There is no reason not to discuss that here in a calm manner:
315:
I agree that the "Extensions" section was poorly worded. I think it was intended to state that it is true in general that a polynomial over a general field has no more roots than its degree and that
Lagrange is a special case of that: this is the approach taken by 24.19.12.242. I prefer the
272:
case), though at least it's understandably so--Tattersall bends over backwards to avoid discussing fields or polynomial rings. I mostly rewrote the page and added a new proof of my own. I don't have a source--this is very basic material any grad student in math should be able to come up with.
202:
You could at least add a reference here and there leading to a place that will show how and why something is "a standard fact". Stating "standard facts" and presuming the reader has to know that, implies, that they're not the right audience for this article anyway, because they already know
264:" means what exactly?), the proof was just awful: it was overcomplicated, it tried to be self-contained but referenced results that can prove the theorem more quickly and cleanly, it was a little wrong.... I looked at the proof in Tattersall's
338:
I agree that the old version is far worse mathematically, but we are not writing journal articles here. By your own admission on this talk page, you replaced what was on the page by a proof of your own. This is clearly a violation of
481:
comments
Deltahedron; it seems the old proof was simply unsourced rather than OR, so I can understand if you want to revert it ("lesser of two evils", I suppose?). Good luck all improving the page if you wish to spend time on it.
206:
The original proof in the history may have been a bit simplified, but it was way better than what I'm reading right now. The current thing doesn't add up to a proof as far as I can tell and uses circular reasoning, like:
348:. Find a proof that is to your liking, paraphrase it and put it into the article with references. I will let this stand for no more than a week before I revert/fix it again (but I can not speak for other editors).
199:
Then it says "it's a standard fact" over and over again, that is not at all helpful. I mean, the whole message in
Lagrange's theorem is also "a standard fact", so why bother even writing down a proof?
133:
262:
196:
Firstly the presentation is bad - at least a few line breaks to split up thoughts would help. It's hard to even follow the steps when reading this single pile of words.
541:
127:
510:
I left the first version of the theorem as it is the one I found on the page (approximately), but it might appear as too redundant with the second version.
536:
507:
I've re-written the statement to be more precise (and true), as well as the proof, the format of some mathematical notations could be improved.
297:
Since the old version seems in every way worse, including being OR, I've reverted your (well-intentioned, though perhaps overly quick) revert.
103:
216:
482:
298:
278:
446:
425:
94:
58:
344:
policy. It is clear to me that you could improve this page (and it certainly needs it), but please do so while respecting the
193:
I'm not an expert in formulating mathematical proofs, but having read many in my life, I can say, this one doesn't qualify.
418:
33:
220:
21:
486:
439:
302:
282:
211:"Another standard fact is that a non-zero polynomial over a field has at most as many roots as its degree"
513:
I have not added any source since I only re-used the idea of the division algorithm to prove the result.
457:
388:
321:
164:
39:
80:
522:
490:
461:
392:
357:
325:
306:
286:
224:
183:
168:
514:
237:
175:
102:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
518:
353:
234:
This article was terrible. The theorem statement was a little wrong ("an integer polynomial over
179:
86:
70:
52:
443:
422:
345:
453:
384:
317:
160:
268:, and it too is overcomplicated, unintuitive, and also slightly wrong (it ignores the
530:
379:
349:
340:
156:
99:
76:
155:
Do we really need the proof written out like this? And what is the
415:
Making
Mathematics Come to Life: A Guide for Teachers and Students
15:
215:...which is sort of the essence of Lagrange's theorem.
240:
98:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
256:
132:This article has not yet received a rating on the
189:The current proof (March 26 2020) is a nasty mess
383:artificial deadlines rarely help discussion.
438:. Oxford science publications (reprint ed.).
8:
378:to make the encyclopaedia worse and indeed
19:
47:
266:Elementary Number Theory in Nine Chapters
246:
242:
241:
239:
374:That's rather interesting: there is no
49:
542:Unknown-priority mathematics articles
7:
92:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
112:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
537:Start-Class mathematics articles
115:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
79:
69:
51:
20:
257:{\displaystyle \mathbb {Z} /p}
1:
491:00:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
462:19:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
419:American Mathematical Society
411:The earlier proof appears in
393:18:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
358:18:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
326:17:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
307:08:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
287:00:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
106:and see a list of open tasks.
432:The later is quite close to
184:22:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
169:10:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
558:
225:13:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
523:15:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
436:A Course in Number Theory
131:
64:
46:
413:Ivanov, Oleg A. (2009).
134:project's priority scale
440:Oxford University Press
277:cares to hunt for one.
95:WikiProject Mathematics
258:
28:This article is rated
259:
434:Rose, H. E. (1995).
238:
118:mathematics articles
503:Statement and proof
254:
87:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
148:
147:
144:
143:
140:
139:
549:
452:
431:
350:Bill Cherowitzo
263:
261:
260:
255:
250:
245:
230:Revamped article
120:
119:
116:
113:
110:
89:
84:
83:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
557:
556:
552:
551:
550:
548:
547:
546:
527:
526:
505:
449:
433:
428:
412:
236:
235:
232:
191:
157:reliable source
153:
117:
114:
111:
108:
107:
85:
78:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
555:
553:
545:
544:
539:
529:
528:
504:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
447:
426:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
331:
330:
329:
328:
310:
309:
294:
293:
253:
249:
244:
231:
228:
217:80.138.118.155
190:
187:
152:
149:
146:
145:
142:
141:
138:
137:
130:
124:
123:
121:
104:the discussion
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
554:
543:
540:
538:
535:
534:
532:
525:
524:
520:
516:
511:
508:
502:
492:
488:
484:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
463:
459:
455:
450:
448:0-19-852376-9
445:
441:
437:
429:
427:0-8218-8629-0
424:
420:
416:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
394:
390:
386:
381:
377:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
359:
355:
351:
347:
342:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
327:
323:
319:
314:
313:
312:
311:
308:
304:
300:
296:
295:
291:
290:
289:
288:
284:
280:
274:
271:
267:
251:
247:
229:
227:
226:
222:
218:
213:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
188:
186:
185:
181:
177:
174:polynomials.
171:
170:
166:
162:
158:
150:
135:
129:
126:
125:
122:
105:
101:
97:
96:
88:
82:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
512:
509:
506:
483:24.19.12.242
435:
414:
375:
299:24.19.12.242
279:24.19.12.242
275:
269:
265:
233:
214:
210:
209:
205:
203:everything.
201:
198:
195:
192:
172:
154:
93:
40:WikiProjects
454:Deltahedron
385:Deltahedron
318:Deltahedron
161:Deltahedron
109:Mathematics
100:mathematics
59:Mathematics
30:Start-class
531:Categories
376:obligation
346:WP:Pillars
442:. p. 41.
421:. p. 74.
159:for it?
515:Trashyyy
176:David815
380:WP:IAR
270:f(x)=0
36:scale.
341:WP:OR
151:Proof
519:talk
487:talk
458:talk
444:ISBN
423:ISBN
389:talk
354:talk
322:talk
303:talk
283:talk
221:talk
180:talk
165:talk
128:???
533::
521:)
489:)
460:)
417:.
391:)
356:)
324:)
305:)
285:)
223:)
182:)
167:)
517:(
485:(
456:(
451:.
430:.
387:(
352:(
320:(
301:(
281:(
252:p
248:/
243:Z
219:(
178:(
163:(
136:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
