Talk:Geometric sequence/Draft: Difference between revisions
imported>Peter Schmitt (→Dividing by zero: done) |
imported>Anthony.Sebastian (→For non-experts, article needs many more examples: new section) |
||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
: Indeed. But not only since the last corrections -- q=1 was never excluded. It seems we both have overlooked it. But I have written it (blushing). --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 15:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC) | : Indeed. But not only since the last corrections -- q=1 was never excluded. It seems we both have overlooked it. But I have written it (blushing). --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 15:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
== For non-experts, article needs <b>many</b> more examples == | |||
It seems to me that, for non-experts, [[Geometric sequence]] needs <b>many</b> more examples, perhaps duplicate/triplicate examples in some cases. To make it more of a teaching tool for high-schoolers, undergraduates, other groups. | |||
Why sequence called 'geometric'? | |||
Would note vote against approving as is, but would hope for re-approval soon after. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 02:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:43, 13 May 2010
Cannot resist
The term still reminds me of the order in which students entered the room for geometry class; I was generally last. --Howard C. Berkowitz 21:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
What about zero?
It is unclear for now, whether the following sequences are geometric or not:
Boris Tsirelson 10:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Right. But what is meant by 0,0,1 ? --Peter Schmitt 16:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just a finite sequence, of length 3, whose first element is 0, second 0, and third 1. (You may think of a possible definition , but I did not say I want it to be in the article; I stay neutral; I only want some definition; and in fact, I feel already satisfied.) Boris Tsirelson 17:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I see. I think it is best to stay with the "standard" (naive) definition here. That is why I did not change the lead, but only added a remark to the formal section. --Peter Schmitt 17:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just a finite sequence, of length 3, whose first element is 0, second 0, and third 1. (You may think of a possible definition , but I did not say I want it to be in the article; I stay neutral; I only want some definition; and in fact, I feel already satisfied.) Boris Tsirelson 17:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Right. But what is meant by 0,0,1 ? --Peter Schmitt 16:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
What about q?
"...is called geometric sequence if
for all indices i." — I'd add, "and some number q (not dependent on i)." Boris Tsirelson 10:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- Right. Done. --Peter Schmitt 16:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
More examples
An example of an infinite increasing sequence could be added. Also a constant sequence. Boris Tsirelson 10:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have added 3 more ( and 0,0,0 ). --Peter Schmitt 16:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nice. Boris Tsirelson 17:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Dividing by zero
If q is permitted to be 1 then the formula for the finite sum needs a reservation. Boris Tsirelson 15:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. But not only since the last corrections -- q=1 was never excluded. It seems we both have overlooked it. But I have written it (blushing). --Peter Schmitt 15:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
For non-experts, article needs many more examples
It seems to me that, for non-experts, Geometric sequence needs many more examples, perhaps duplicate/triplicate examples in some cases. To make it more of a teaching tool for high-schoolers, undergraduates, other groups.
Why sequence called 'geometric'?
Would note vote against approving as is, but would hope for re-approval soon after. Anthony.Sebastian 02:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)