Talk:Perfection

Aren't numbers with greater divisor sums than themselves called abundant rather than redundant? I'd replace it myself, but I don't have access to the citation, so I can't be sure there wasn't a different archaic term in use. Metasquares (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on "perfect number," insofar as it is correct, appears to support your terminology. The Polish-language original of Władysław Tatarkiewicz's book On Perfection, on which this Wikipedia "Perfection" article is based, quotes (p. 25) the Latin term "redundantio" (and renders it in Polish as "nadmierne"—"excessive," "superfluous," "redundant"). The translator has rendered "redundantio" into English with the calque, "redundant."

I wonder whether the Latin "redundantio," as printed, might not be in error, and perhaps should have been cited instead as "abundantio"?

Or maybe the Latin "redundantio" is correct but should nevertheless be rendered into English as "abundant"?

I would tend to defer to your doubtless greater knowledge of mathematics. In any case, your caution, expressed above, is commendable. Nihil novi (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I like your music, poems and art work. Nihil novi (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Please change the picture of Descartes to this one: Image:Frans Hals - Portret van René Descartes.jpg so the lower resolution picture can delete in Commons 213.186.252.252 (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Nihil novi (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Amount of Pictures

Is it really necessary to have all those pictures on here? I don't see how they're at all relevant, "Oh and this is how the philosophers who thought about this subject looked - ALL OF THEM" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.177.163 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not only do I completely agree but this comment made me lol Dakoman (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Table of contents

The table of contents appears as a right sidebar, as opposed to being an element in the page. Likely the result ofd a syntax error. Kind of ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwo (talk • contribs) 01:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Jwh335 (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Perfect Number Section of the Perfection Wikipedia entry

I have no expertise here. I came to this from the entry on Perfect numbers. This section seems to be messy and lacks citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.150.62.85 (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In this section it says that 10 was considered perfect for mathematical reasons as well as its relation to nature. However, there is no mention of the mathematical qualities that make 10 perfect. The only thing mentioned is the number of fingers. --24.57.19.247 (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

This article had far too many images that didn't add anything to the article, to the point that it was hard to read (the images were a continuous border along the sides. I considered tagging with {{too many photos}} and asking an editor familiar with this topic to choose which images to remove, but decided that wouldn't be enough; it would be better to start over from scratch. So I have removed all of them; whoever knows about this topic can choose which images to put back (I'd suggest no more than 2 images per every 3 sections, so about 5 images maximum for the article); make sure they are only images of people who are important and discussed a lot in the article (many of the people pictured previously were only mentioned in a single sentence, so why bother taking up so much space to illustrate them?). If someone does feel I was wrong and reverts me, at least add a {{too many photos}} tag to the top of the article, because this is seriously a problem. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)