Disputatio:Logicus infractus
Um... what are we talking about here? En:Jonathan Richman doesn't seem to turn up anything helpful. Iustinus
- scribe latina!
- Phy, num anglice nescis? Bene bene, ecce: de quanam re hic loquamur? Nihil enim En:Jonathan Richman legens quod usui sit invenio. --Iustinus 00:04 nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
It's just a special case of the paradoxes that result if you allow division by zero, which of course you don't if you're a mathematician. Worthy of an article? I dunno... maybe En:Division by zero. (sorry... non possum illud dicere latine!) - Mustafaa 00:33 nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Right. So is all the author intended to write about Fallacies based on division by zero? And who is Jonathan Richman? The author's math teacher? And what is intended by Richmanum commentatus est or for that matter the entire last sentence? Original author, if you're reading this, please explain.
- Ita prorsus. Nempe igitur auctor nihil in animo habebat quod scriberet nisi de fallaciis illis quae ex divisionem per nihil eveniunt? Et quisnam est iste Ionathanus Richmanus? Magister auctoris de mathematicis? Quid sibi vult "Richmanum commentatus est" et quid ultima sententia? Haec omnia, o auctor, si adhuc legis, nobis enodes quaeso. --Iustinus 00:52 nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
This is just a copy of a deleted article written on the English Wikipedia. Jonathan Richman is a guy in the author's maths class.
- There's a shock. I suppose we should just delete this then. --Iustinus 21:12 nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Let's NOT delete it. Enlarge its scope by moving it to a name that will allow it to match en:Division by zero, remove JR, and wait for some Latin speaker with a taste for maths to expand it. Robin Patterson 23:12 nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
- That makes sense. --Iustinus 23:23 nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete it like the english wikipedia did or rewrite it like en:Division by zero -- Cap601 08:25 dec15, 2004
We still have a problem: logicus will mean "logician" not "logic." We probably should just move this to a "Division by Zero" type article... but to be honest I have no idea what the correct way to say this is. I'd love to see what renaissance mathematicians used. --Iustinus 20:16 mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Clearly we have a problem here: you cannot render Arabic numbers in the Latin wikipedia. I propose en:Roman numerals --Danny
- I don't see why not. We don't have to do everything the way the Romans did it (e.g. we use lowercase letters, we distinguish u and v, and we don't use interpuncts). Furthermore, see the style guide for numbers, which has been in force since before I came here. --Iustinus 21:04 apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as it's a load of rubbish