105:
Overall I think there may need to be more explanation of the jargon for the non-mathematically inclined. For example, the summation formula in the "Age of computers" section. Both the factorial and the summation symbols may need to be explained. Likewise the absolute value brackets in the
109:
Is the continued fraction really appropriate for the infobox? Shouldn't it be down in the body of the article? At first glance it would also seem rather useless, so why is it of particular note to the reader (other than as a triumph of mathematical
37:
I think this article needs somebody with a lot of time and mathematical experience to review this article. It has a lot of math terms in in and I hope that people other than just me could take a look and see if anything is wrong. Thanks.
106:"Naturality" section and integrals starting in the geometry section. About all I can say about the Physics section is that the formulae are meaningless without an explanation of the parameters and some clarification of their purpose.
84:
Statements like "fascinated", "remarkable", "occurs often" and "difficult to understand" express a point of view, so they either need to be backed up with a citation or rendered
57:
91:
There are a number of facts on this page that, while true, are unsourced. For example, "It remains the formula of choice for π calculating software..."
80:
As far as I can see upon a quick glance through, the math looks okay. Here's a few issues that struck me while reading the article:
85:
21:
49:
17:
119:
125:
69:
65:
42:
39:
53:
115:
61:
98:
is first introduced without explanation, as is the gamma function Γ(1/4).
56:
style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click
31:
52:
review of the article for issues relating to grammar and
102:
is then defined down in the complex analysis section.
8:
114:I hope this was somewhat helpful. Thanks. —
48:A script has been used to generate a semi-
7:
28:
1:
126:17:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
70:19:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
43:22:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
141:
18:Knowledge:Peer review
132:
140:
139:
135:
134:
133:
131:
130:
129:
78:
68:
35:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
138:
136:
112:
111:
107:
103:
92:
89:
77:
74:
73:
72:
64:
34:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
137:
128:
127:
123:
122:
117:
108:
104:
101:
97:
94:The constant
93:
90:
87:
83:
82:
81:
75:
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
46:
45:
44:
41:
33:
30:
23:
19:
120:
113:
99:
95:
86:more neutral
79:
36:
110:theorists)?
60:. Thanks,
40:Parent5446
88:in style.
50:automated
20: |
54:house
16:<
121:talk
58:here
116:RJH
76:RJH
62:APR
124:)
32:Pi
22:Pi
118:(
100:e
96:e
66:t
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.