Talk:Constant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 March 2008. The result of the discussion was merge content to Mathematical constant, then redirect page to Constant (disambiguation).

Mathematics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating:	Start Class	Mid Priority	Field: Basics
A vital article.
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Click to show/hide comments. Please add to or update the comments to suggest improvements to the article. Needs longer lead, and references. Geometry guy 22:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Additional information: Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article. The following comments have been left for this page: Needs longer lead, and references. Geometry guy 22:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC) (edit)

To-do list for Constant:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: long term goal: featured article the style should be improved mathematical constants and physical constant should be merged nicely there should be a history section a part on calculating constants would be nice (algorithms, formulae, computers, ...) the intro needs to be more attractive/less technical better pictures better/more references please add more ideas!

[edit] Chatty and unstructured

This article has expanded tremendously, but it is chatty and unstructured. The version of a month ago looked like this, with clear links to physical constant and mathematical constant. I would prefer to revert to that version. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I must agree but please be more specific. Also, there are clear links to physical constant and mathematical constant. Randomblue (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not really thought about it, but it might be best to have a disambiguation page here instead of an essay "constant" about concepts that are not really that related to eachother. Some constants are defined, others are mathematics, others are measured, etcetera. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a page Constant (disambiguation). I also refer to what I wrote here, including this: I am actually not convinced that it is worth having a separate article like this next to Constant (disambiguation) and the specific articles (i.e., Mathematical constant and Physical constant) and again: I remain unconvinced it has a reason to exist.  --Lambiam 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lambian (although the "rock"-example is a bit of an exaggeration). Users are probably served best by moving Constant (disambiguation) here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are reasons why I think the article should stay:

• I don't know about Lambiam but I see that Pieter Kuiper is a "solid state physicist". Perhaps you don't appreciate enough the fact that the concept of a constant is a scientific one, and not solely a mathematical or physical concept. Chemists, biologists, cosmologists, economists, sociologists and maybe even computer scientists work with constants as well.
• Many authors (even with just a little research I found two quotes) suggest that constants have a fascinating, intriguing or beautiful aspect to them and this observation is a common observation for at the least mathematical and physical constants.
• Constants have quite a remarkable history, related in part to their notation. Also, mathematical constants and physical constants have a common history: Newton was both a mathematician and physicist, Kepler was both a mathematician and an astronomer,...
• It turns out that some constants are not discovered in a strictly orthodox way (mathematical constants while doing maths, physical constant while doing physics, etc...) Indeed, some mathematical constants (like the Feigenbaum constants that arised from studying fluids for example) are discovered not when doing mathematics and physical constants are sometimes discovered (or at least predicted) by abstract mathematical means.
• Some constants (as I've tried to suggest it) don't really fit in the classification of mathematical and physical constants because they are much more universal: we encounter them in both mathematics and physics.
• One cannot really claim that unspecified constants are of a mathematical type, of a physical type, or of any specific type. They are 'tools' that scientists use when doing modeling for example.

I must apologize if the article doesn't look pleasant. This is really my first article, I'm no kind of constant expert, and, I've only been working (from scratch) on this article for weeks. I'm ready to completely rewrite the article and apportion various parts to more specific articles. However, I really do think that the scientific concept of a constant can be dealt with as a whole before diving in the depth of the more specialized type. Randomblue (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Randomblue does not present his credentials, so it cannot be ruled out that he has a much greater overview over general science than I do. The important point though is whether his essay is what a reader would expect to find in an encyclopedia. The word 'constant' does not mean very much, but it is important to note that it is often used as a contrast to 'variable'. The article constant (disambiguation) does so at the outset, while this essay never gets to such a central point.

I believe that this essay includes too much original research (which includes synthesis and joining together things in creative ways) and that it is too personal for an encyclopedia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"I really do think that the scientific concept of a constant can be dealt with as a whole". Here we clearly disagree; I think the various notions that are called "constant" are too diverse and disparate to be amenable to a meaningful joint treatment.  --Lambiam 13:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Pieter Kuiper, if you want my credentials here they are: I'm a first year undergraduate at the University of Cambridge, studying maths. Hence, you surely have much more experience than I do. However, I am ready to do research to build a very decent article.

Contrasting constant with variable seems to be more of a "dictionary" or "thesaurus" point of view. Most people 'know' that constant contrasts with variable. However, it is the entity itself that is of interest here. What is a constant (these real numbers)? How do we define them? What role do they play in science? Why should π be more important than 3.65?

I agree that this is an "essay" more than a proper encyclopedic article yet, but this is just the kind of work I am used to, and I wish to achieve something appropriate. I suggest you cite sentences that you find too personal (or even delete a few!) so that I can work on them.

User:Lambiam, let me rephrase my idea: "Within the scope of the definition of constant a real number with significant importance it is possible to deal with it as a whole. Indeed, with this definition we exclude the computer science term, constant functions, logical constants, etc."

Randomblue (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, as I see it, the mathematical constant article is hardly more than a dry list. I find that discussion always helps grasp a concept. Randomblue (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As a Cambridge math student, Randomblue probably knows more about mathematical constants than I do, and he certainly has a greater interest in them. I think most of this article is about mathematics. A large part of the material here could be moved to a general article about mathematical constants. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Apart from a few dimensionless physical constants, physical constants are not real numbers, and treating them together with the mathematical constants is purely artificial. The numerical values when such constants are expressed in specific units of measurement depend on decisions in defining these units that are completely irrelevant from the viewpoint of physics (such as using not-really-constant geophysical properties of the planet Earth as the basis for choosing the lengths of the second and the meter), and are therefore utterly devoid of any particular significance. And how does importance enter the concept of "mathematical constant"? Can you cite some reliable source that backs that up? Not all mathematical constants are important, as their number is without end (the largest root of x⁷−20x⁴+4, Σ n/(n³+1), √(π+1), and so on). Even many named mathematical constants have no clear significance, and it is mostly accidental that they were named at all.  --Lambiam 20:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is perhaps possible to interpret Steven Finch's (the author of "mathematical constants") quote that "all constant's are not created equal" as "all constant's aren't all as important one another". I guess that examples of important constants include the truly ubiquitous and universal, those who translate nice facts (Conway's constant) and those who link different branches of mathematics (Euler-Mascheroni). Anyway, thanks for the input. I might get working on mathematical constant or some other article I'm keen about. Randomblue (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)