Talk:Recreational mathematics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / Mathematics Start‑class
WikiProject iconRecreational mathematics has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Mathematics. If you can improve it, please do.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

A little copyediting[edit]

I just got rid of some unnecessary words to improve the article.---Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2007‎

Recreational mathematics vs. mathematical games[edit]

I've just disentangled this topic from mathematical games. Although they are clearly related, these two are not the same thing. In the most simple terms "recreational mathematics" is a field of activity; a "mathematical game" may be one the elements within that field of study.---User:Eclecticology

I'm baffled. The two pages are quasi-identical. Is it your intention that they gradually grow apart? --Tarquin
it really should be merged. how did they end up apart? adding merge tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intent to edit[edit]

Ahh! As a Martin Gardner fan, I am disappointed at the incomprehensiveness of the field of recreational mathematics is on Wikipedia. I'll be fixing this category up in the following days.Leon math 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lewis Carroll or Charles Dodgeson?[edit]

He was known better by his pen-name, however forged a successful career as a logiciana/mathematician and academic under his true name. I therefore believe it to be more appropriate to list him in the article as Charles Dodgeson (Lewis Carroll). Thoughts?Rayman60 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People section[edit]

Someone should think hard who should be included in this section. I already removed a couple of people who are definitely not "prominent" in the field. Clearly the first six names in the list belong here. But who else should really be listed as the exemplars of the field? Should Raymond Smullyan be included? How about A.K. Dewdney? Shouldn't the section have a more descriptive name?--Foobarnix (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Recreational mathematics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requirement for "prominence" in "People" section[edit]

Can we please get some clarity on the inclusion rules for the "People" section and the "Online blogs, podcasts, and YouTube channels" section.

What is the definition of "Prominent"? How is that different from "Notable"? User User:Toploftical wrote that people have to be in the same "league",[1] but I can't find a definition for that. If, as they suggested, there is more than 500 people that should be included, then surely that would need its own category or a whole page devoted to it?

Feel free to create such a page and call it List of recreational mathematicians or List of mathematics popularizers."  
If you do not see the enormous disparity between Matt Parker and the other people on the "prominent" list, I am afraid I cannot help you. Each of the prominent people have thousands of references online and in the literature. I took a look at the Parker page and 80% of the supporting references are YouTube videos at NumberPhile.--Toploftical (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The notable recreational mathematician Matt Parker should surely be included in one of those lists?

I just added him to Category:Recreational mathematicians, something that is justified and should have been done a long time ago. Categories and lists tend to overlap in function and nobody is clear on which approach should be taken in individual cases. It causes a bit of redundancy too.
I personally enjoy Parker and have watched his videos many times. But he is not "Prominent". Einstein if prominent. The inventor of the Frisbee is not.

--Toploftical (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should these two sections be merged?

No --Toploftical (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

peterl (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]