Talk:Multiplicative partition
In this article we are going to talk about Talk:Multiplicative partition, a topic that has generated great interest in recent times. Talk:Multiplicative partition has been the subject of numerous debates, research and reflections by experts and the general public. Its relevance has transcended borders and has impacted different areas of society, from politics to popular culture. This is why it is essential to dedicate time and attention to deeply understanding what Talk:Multiplicative partition is, what its implications are and how its presence has shaped the contemporary world. Throughout this article we will explore various perspectives on Talk:Multiplicative partition, with the aim of shedding light on its importance and the challenges it poses.
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Should this article be called Unordered factorization,
with a redirect for multiplicative partition?-Rich Peterson130.86.14.165 (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
dumb question!
Knopfmacher, A. and Mays, M. "Ordered and Unordered Factorizations of Integers." Mathematica J. 10, 72-89, 2006.
I got this reference from the mathworld site. Is it ok to just insert it in the refs here? It would show that "unordered factorization" is used as well as "multiplicative partition".Rich (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. It looks like a reliable source by our standards, and relevant to the subject of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- ok, but should MathWorld be given acknowledgement for finding and publishing this reference? Thanks, Rich (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. It would be best to actually read the paper and base what you say about it here on that reading. If you do that, you don't need to cite the intermediate source as well. But if you can't actually access the paper, and are basing what you write here only on what it says in the MathWorld article, then you need to declare that, e.g. by saying "As cited by MathWorld." at the end of the citation to the paper.
- thanksRich (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. It would be best to actually read the paper and base what you say about it here on that reading. If you do that, you don't need to cite the intermediate source as well. But if you can't actually access the paper, and are basing what you write here only on what it says in the MathWorld article, then you need to declare that, e.g. by saying "As cited by MathWorld." at the end of the citation to the paper.
Redundant?
Isn't
a squarefree number with i distinct prime factors
the same as just
a squarefree number with i prime factors
? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaQuilla (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)