Jump to content

Talk:Effective results in number theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

"effectively computable" should be defined somehow ;-) --FvdP

While I revised the french translation of this article, I stumbled on a few sentences I could hardly understand:

  • These included lower bounds for class numbers (ideal class groups for some families of number fields grow);: I understood & translated as : "lower bounds on how grows the ideal class group of some families of fields". I'll put that back in this article, but can someone confirm it's true ?
  • Ineffective results are still being proved in the shape A or B, where we have no way of telling which. That's not clear (to me). Does this mean: no effective way to tell which of A or B, but an effective way to determine "A or B" ?

Also, about: taking much more care about proofs by contradiction: what kind of care ? Care of making them effective ?

--FvdP 20:47, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Effectively computable - old-fashioned, see Church-Turing thesis. It's better to link to that, than explain it twice.

Growth of class numbers - the sense is OK, but the English expression above? Anyway, typically we want to bound from below (minoration) for h(-d), the class number of Q(√-d).

Example of a fairly recent ineffective result: one out of 3, 5, and 7 is a primitive root modulo p for infinitely many primes p; but we cannot compute which one, from the proof.

Charles Matthews 15:50, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Naming issues

[edit]

While the name of this article is "Effective results in number theory", it mostly talks about ineffective results. Maybe the name should be changed to Effectiveness of results in number theory or something of the sort?

Y 5.22.131.182 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]