Talk:Euclid number
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Comment
editThis article was tagged as confusing. I think this stems from primorialot beign defined in the article. However, it is linked and people who don't know the term (e.g. myself) can follow the link. I therefore removed the tag for confusion. RJFJR 22:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Merging in Euclid–Mullin sequence
editThe relevant property is that these are sequences that use logic similar to Euclid's to generate primes. It is stated in the article that Euclid never specifically used this sequence; the name is a (presumably 20th century) addition.
Euclid-Mullin number is only relevant as recreational mathematics, as is this. I can either revert (and improve) the merge, or I can AfD Euclid-Mullin number if you feel that article is not worth salvaging. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- With multiple published papers on the topic of the Euclid–Mullin sequence it is independently notable, regardless of your opinions of its importance. You can go ahead and AfD if you want to be tendentious about it, but I predict it will pass. Besides, the content in its article is twice as long as the article here, so including it here would either be WP:UNDUE or would entail cutting large amounts of relevant and properly sourced material. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree it won't pass AfD after your improvements. I personally would merge Sylvester's sequence into this article as well, but I'm moving on. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Not what I expected
editAccording to Knuth, Graham & Patashnik's Concrete Mathematics (pg. 111) E# is not P# + 1. It says E[n] = E[n-1] x E[n-2] x ... E[1] + 1
E[1] = 1
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8e80:30df:99c4:fbfd:3f0f:ee0 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Really? The definition you give matches the one for our article Sylvester's sequence, which doesn't mention Euclid. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am not doubting you, but it's what Knuth said--check the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8E80:30DF:C26:DB0F:6530:119C (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)