Talk:Arithmetica Universalis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An entry from Arithmetica Universalis appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 21 April 2006.

This article can be expanded. Something that has close to 300 Google Print hits ([1]) and over a hundred Google Scholar hits ([2]) surely can be covered more extensively then in one screen stub-lenght article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I won't push the issue, but I seriously don't think that this article is going to get significantly expanded. From WP:STUB:

A stub is an article that is too short, but not so short as to be useless. In general, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title, which generally means 3 to 10 short sentences. Note that even a longer article on a complicated topic may be a stub; conversely, a short article on a topic of narrow scope may not be a stub. Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Internet search or a few minutes in a reference library. An article that can be improved by only a rather knowledgeable editor, or after significant research, may not be a stub.

First of all, this article is 10 sentences long- for a relatively obscure topic I think it puts it out of stub range. Secondly, I seriously doubt that anything significant could be added by a person not familiar with math and math history- I guess this article could talk a bit more about the math in the Arithmetica, but it's going to involve technical stuff. It's not a big deal though- I just think that if it's a stub now, it's going to be a stub forever. Borisblue 02:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Some articles remain as stub for years, but eventually everything seems to be expanded. My rule of thumb is if I can see the main body (w/out lists and such) in one screen, it is a stub - and that has never failed me. For expantion, in addition to what you mentioned, I am sure more can be written about how and when Newton wrote the text, the relationship between Newton and Whiston, could Newton have really afforded to buy the copies, how is the book viewed by today mathematicians...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason WP:STUB doesn't assign absolute values for stubs (e.g. stubs are articles that contain this many words etc) is that some articles may be covered more comprehensively than others. Thus, A page-long article on World War II say should qualify as a stub, whereas a page-long article on Gazerbeam is probably already too long. Can you expand the article significantly? If it really is a stub that should be possible even with very little effort and very little expertise, per the WP:STUB guidelines. Again, is no big deal, stub/no stub is an aribitrary distinction. Borisblue 13:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I unstubbed - not merely a couple of sentences and I want to put it on DYK--A Y Arktos\^talk 10:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imaginary Roots

Does anyone know what algorithm Newton devised? -- GWO

After some googling, I can report that the rule is too awkward to state in the article (or on this page). I'll add a little more info to the article to make it easier for people who want to search for more information.

Preceding unsigned comment by 70.244.107.188

[edit] Inexplicability

Does anyone know why Newton was unsatisfied with the Arithmetica Universalis? --Smajie

I was wondering the same thing! --Rev. Austin 22:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)