Talk:Mihăilescu's theorem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Given that "consecutive" is not explained in the article Integer, I think that a link to a nonexistent article Consecutive_number, which may inspire somebody to write about it, is better than a link to Integer. This is especially true in light of the fact that it's more relevant to think of the numbers as natural numbers, and there's already a link to Natural_number. Finally, if the objection is that "consecutive number" is ambiguous since we might be talking about rational numbers or real numbers, my reply is that "consecutive" makes no sense in those contexts, and indeed it's standard to interpret "consecutive number" in the context of natural numbers (or integers), unless otherwise specified. — Toby Bartels, Thursday, July 18, 2002
[edit] Name of page
So shouldn't this page be moved to "Catalan's theorem" since it's been proven? --Lowellian 04:51, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
- At least the first sentence "Catalan's conjecture is a simple conjecture in number theory..." should be "Catalan's conjecture is a simple theorem in number theory...", shouldn't it? - ReiVaX 21:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] References
The only source for this article is to a non-online reference. Can anyone provide something clickable and checkable? wikipediatrix 19:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles
How is Pillai's conjecture the same as Mihailescu's theorem? I will change the link after a week if no one gives me an answer. Sr13 08:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
