User talk:Greg Martin

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}

Welcome, new editor! We're very glad you've joined us. Here are pointers for a quick start. Also, when you get a chance, please read The Editor Role. You can look at Getting Started and our help system for other introductory pages. It is also important, for project-wide matters, to join the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list. Announcements are also available via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and thank you! We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise, and we hope to see your edits on Recent changes soon. --Larry Sanger 15:14, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Big O notation

Hi, I proposed moving "Big O notation" to "Complexity of algorithms" or something like this. A constable (Matt) suggested that an opinion of an editor would be appreciated. So could you please take a look at Big O notation and my rationale given Matt's talk page and leave a comment there? Thanks in advance. --AlekStos 08:39, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Responded on Alek's talk page. - Greg Martin 17:58, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Prime Numbers

Thank you so much for your editorial guidance in Prime Numbers. Nancy Sculerati 20:28, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

I, too, appreciate your time. Thanks. Greg Woodhouse 09:17, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Greg, you can edit the article yourself and still nominate it for approval. Every suggestion does not have to be carried out by others when an editor reviews a well developed article like Prime number for nomination for approval. Nancy Sculerati 09:39, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Primes of the form n^2 + 1

This one is new to me. Off-hand, it seems that y = x^2 + 1 is of genus 0 and thus rationally equivalent to a line (not necessarily over Q, but over some finite extension). If it were rationally equivalent to a line over Q, it seems that we ought to be able to appeal to Dirichlet's theorem on infinitely many primes in an arithmetic progression. Just thinking out loud, I guess. Greg Woodhouse 11:15, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Responded on Greg W's talk page - Greg Martin 16:15, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Talk Approval

I think it always does that, and you've made no error. David Tribe 20:16, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

An article on manifolds?

I've been thinking about writing an article on differentiable manifolds, but I always find myself starting out with something like "a manifold is a separable Hausdorff space such that..." Not the most inspiring of introductions. I'm wondering if I should just skip the manifold article (for now) and move on to something more interesting. What do you think? Greg Woodhouse 08:31, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Responded on Greg W's talk page - Greg Martin 14:45, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, I've been thinking about it, and have some ideas, but still haven't completely made up my mind. There are just so many possible starting points. I've been watching Integral and I think I'll see what I can do to help there, and see which of my 3 or 4 article ideas starts to click first. Greg Woodhouse 18:31, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Your opinion on this point

Hello. I wonder if you could post your opinion at Talk:prime number/Draft concerning this point that I raised there? Thanks. Michael Hardy 15:51, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Highly misleading phrase

The approved version of this article says:

in fact, it factors completely into prime numbers, due to unique factorization

That is very misleading at best. It implies that uniqueness rather than existence of the factorization is what entails that a number factors completely into primes. That is clearly false. Even in structures within which factorization is not unique at all, elements still factor completely into primes. Possibly the most well-known example is the ring of integers with a square root of −5 adjoined. Michael Hardy 11:37, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

(end of paste from article talk page)

I'll be responding on Talk:prime number/Draft. Short answer: Michael's right and we have a good plan to improve it. - Greg Martin 14:25, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

On the other hand ...

I've been wanting to change "On one hand" to "On the one hand" (in the 2nd paragraph of the proof of infinity of primes at Prime number/Draft) but am hesitating only because I wouldn't want to change something that was the preferred way to say it in the dialect of whoever put it in. Apparently it came from your medium-thorough rewrite on May 5. If you're a native English speaker and "on one hand" is more correct than "on the one hand" in your dialect, I wouldn't change it. A google search suggests that "on the one hand" is a much more common expression than "on one hand". ("On the other hand" is even more common by far. My theory is that people hesitate to say "on the one hand" because they're confused as to whether to include the "the", so they just don't say it, but there is no such problem with "on the other hand" where the "the" is quite obviously appropriate.) To me, "on one hand" sounds odd, (or confusing -- possibly talking about an actual physical hand or something -- it makes me wonder whether the idea of counting on one's fingers is about to be introduced), while "on the one hand" sounds scholarly. --Catherine Woodgold 08:53, 12 May 2007 (CDT)