Talk:Martin Gardner

Creating?

'Gardner was best known for creating and sustaining interest in recreational mathematics' seems to be claiming that Gardner created recreational mathematics, which he surely didn't. If it really is claiming that, then it gets worse because the sentence continues 'and by extension, mathematics in general' and I'm darned sure he didn't create mathematics in general. 31.52.252.210 (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

He certainly created my interest in recreational mathematics (and to a large extent in mathematics as such). Though my testimony is hardly a valid source, I think the statement is perfectly valid.--Nø (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not claimed that he created recreation math, merely that he created (and sustained) an interest in the subject.--Toploftical (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but clearly the wording needs to be less ambiguous. Weburbia (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Weburbia:The wording is not at all ambiguous. But, if you believe it can be improved, by all means make a suggestion here. Shortsword (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It is ambiguous because it can be read either as "creating and (sustaining interest in) recreational mathematics" or "(creating and sustaining) interest in recreational mathematics" It could be changed to "creating interest in recreational mathematics and sustaining it".Weburbia (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

My vote would be to keep "...best known for creating and sustaining interest in..." as it is. It's perfectly clear and unambiguous. If I mean to imply that he created recreational mathematics, I would write "...best known for creating, and sustaining interest in,..." or "...best known for creating -- and sustaining interest in -- ..." But without either commas or hyphens, the meaning is pretty clear to all but the most nitnoid. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Weburbia. It needs modification to be less ambiguous. Either "encouraging and sustaining interest" or "creating interest in recreational mathematics and sustaining it". - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

He also generated an interest in Flexagons. I think in one of his books he teaches a simple one from an earlier time. He generated an interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streetlight401 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Gardner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160531212311/http://press.princeton.edu/quotes/q10066.html to http://press.princeton.edu/quotes/q10066.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Mathematical Grapevine" section reads too much like a tribute

I'm concerned this section has taken on the character of a fan-page and has departed from the impartial, encyclopedic tone required of biographical Wikipedia articles. Everything carries a distinctively hagiographic tone and reads more like a tribute than a standard Wikipedia entry.
I propose this section be substantially pruned, edited to conform with a more neutral style, and merged with the "Influence" section, which seems to cover more or less the same ground. Both sections have similar tonal problems, but there is no purpose in generating a second, redundant section for the purpose of heaping more praise on the subject. Grifter84 - Доверяй, но проверяй 05:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The article is a total mess and spends more time on hagiography than trying to clarify to the reader his place in American culture. I'm going to try to clean it up a little. Ashmoo (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

1D Chess (Gardner Puzzle)

Heya. Should we discuss Martin Gardner's chess problem?

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Example of the "Gardner puzzle"

Basically, it's about finding a way to checkmate Black's king. Rooks and kings move like in regular chess, while the knight's move could be compared to that of the fairy piece called the dabbaba. The dabbaba moves by leaping 2 squares like a rook. ChameleonGamer 14:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Personal Life

There should be paragraphs on here about Martin Gardner and Charlotte Greenwald Gardner and their offspring. RichardBond (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)