Talk:List of things named after Leonhard Euler

Possible Vandalism

"Euler's number – 1=e = 2.71828..., base of the natural logarithm" 9/11/21

 Fixed D.Lazard (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Tidy-up suggestion

This list really should distinguish between (a) topics discovered or developed by Euler himself - for example exp(i PI)+1=0 - and (b) topics named in honour of Euler like the AMS Euler Font. Rob Burbidge 12:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Euler's relation

Which one does "Euler's relation" relate to? —Pengo 01:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be Euler's formula in this case. Is that what the term generally means? —Pengo 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Euler transform

I've added links to the Euler Transform, as far as I can understand it relates to equations, please correct me if I'm wrong. Sonoluminesence (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Euler's Disk

Euler's disk is listed twice. Argentino (talk/cont.) 17:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As are many items (brick, cycle, integrals, etc.) due to them being listed by type and by field of study. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Euler-Eytelwein formula

Wikipedia .de has http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler-Eytelwein-Formel, wondering why it doesn't seem to have an english equivalent or to be listed here. Is it lurking somewhere in the list? 80.177.9.239 (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Renaming

"Things" is too vague. Can we change the name? Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 19:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but you should have waited at least a day for comments, and "namesakes" is a poor choice because its dictionary definition only refers to persons, not things. This article is only about things. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Typically we wait more than one minute for a discussion to develop. The old name was consistent with Category:Lists of things named after mathematicians, Category:Lists of things named after scientists, and Category:Lists of things named after people. Pburka (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that Epicgenius should have waited for consensus, that "namesakes" makes no sense as these are not people named after Euler, they are things--concepts, algorithms, objects, etc., and agreed that the new name is inconsistent with well-established conventions for this sort of article. Best to revert and discuss further. --Mark viking (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Namesake is wrong because it only refers to a similarity of name - whereas this if for things actually named after Euler. If there was another Leonhard Euler and something was named after them then it should not go into this list. Using 'namesake' to mean named after is fairly common especially in America but it is just not as good as saying 'things named after' which conveys exactly the right information. Dmcq (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with everyone; this move should be undone posthaste. --JBL (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed it back. Note that

• Some things may accidentally be namesakes without being named after the person.
• "Namesakes" is often taken to mean persons rather than things.
• Category:Lists of things named after mathematicians, Category:Lists of things named after scientists, and Category:Lists of things named after people are standard things within Wikipedia.
• Discussion on this present page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics favors the old name.
• I think this page has been cited in magazines and web pages outside of Wikipedia.

Michael Hardy (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the old name was better. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yay! -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspected mistake ("finite" vs. "infinite")

Currently, the 4th entry (the entry after the 4th "bullet point") in the "Formulas" section of this article, says

Euler's continued fraction formula connecting a finite sum of products with a finite continued fraction

"as of" the "Latest revision as of 09:45, 2 July 2024" version of this article.

The above "block quoted" quote does not seem to agree with what it actually says, in the first sentence of [the article about] "Euler's continued fraction formula".

I went to that article, and the first sentence there, said: [QUOTE:]

In the analytic theory of continued fractions, Euler's continued fraction formula is an identity connecting a certain very general infinite series with an infinite continued fraction.

"as of" when I looked at it.

There seems to be a discrepancy or disagreement (perhaps even a mistake) here! The first "block quoted" quote [above] uses the word "finite" (twice). Yet, the article [about] "Euler's continued fraction formula" uses -- instead -- the word "infinite" (twice).

Even if there is not a "mistake" here, this does seem to be some content that could be confusing (at least, to some readers) so it would be appropriate to explain why the apparent 'discrepancy' is there (that is, why it "is not" a mistake).

On the other hand, if that apparent 'discrepancy' *** is *** a mistake, then the wording should probably be changed, to correct it.

Either way, I think that the entry shown in the first "block quoted" quote [above], seems to have some "room for improvement".

Thanks for listening. Mike Schwartz (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Euler's formula is for a finite sum and finite continued fraction. One gets a relation of infinite series by taking limits. Tito Omburo (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)