Talk:Resolvent cubic

There is something wrong with this article, because in the expression "cubic resolvent" (sic), it is the "resolvent" that is the noun, and "cubic" that is the adjective; not the other way around.

Furthermore, the term "resolvent" refers to an equation, not to an expression/polynomial.

Thus the "cubic resolvent" is an equation that involves a cubic polynomial.

This Wikipedia page ought to be removed, and a better one written under the heading "cubic resolvent" (terms reversed).

Proper use of language also means that "an equation is solved", but "a root is found". You can't solve a root. That's just plain bad language. (irritating when you're looking for serious entries). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.255.97 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 14 May 2012‎

The expression "resolvent cubic" is in common use for this concept, whether you or I or anyone else thinks that it logically should be or not. Google searches suggest that it may be more common than "cubic resolvent", though that is not a totally reliable test. Generally speaking, Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that we use the title which is most commonly recognised in English, whether or not we think it is a good title.

I have searched, and every source I have seen defines the resolvent as being a polynomial, not an equation. See, for example, Integers, Polynomials, and Rings: A Course in Algebra by Ronald S. Irving, page 163.

You are quite right in saying that one solves an equation but finds roots, and I have corrected that. (You could have done so.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)