![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-16. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | A fact from 1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256 + ⋯ appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 March 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
It is notable because it is one of the first infinite series to be summed.
Also, other articles with similar titles (for proof of precedent):
Questions:
Thanks. -- Finngall 19:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Answers:
It seems to me that if a series isn't significant enough to have a more common (and more easily searchable) name, it's not significant enough to merit its own entry. But that's just me. Finngall 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The name may be complex, but that's simply not relevant to the notability of the article. We also have
etc. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 19:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I agree with the proposed deletion. This article is about a straightforward convergent infinite geometric series, which does not deserve an article in its own right - at best it could be an example in geometric series. But if there is going to be a debate about this, let's take it to AfD - that's what the process is for. Gandalf61 10:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll be away for a few days, so if this hits DYK, I admit that there's more material to add to the article. For example, the partial sum argument could be explicitly expanded out, and something could be said about 0.010101… in base 2 and 0.111… in base 4. Melchoir 08:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and the lead image needs to be tarted up a lot. Melchoir 08:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
As I see it there are three pieces, one white, one black and one gray, each with the same area (1/3) of the large square. The whole point of the figure is to show that the ratio between the area of the big square and the area of the sequence of smaller squares is 1:3, hence the three equal pieces which make up the whole large square. demo 13:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Some visual demonstrations may be attractive but are pretty awfully inefficient. I have added a simple elegant proof missing in this article just as in the 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+... article. Cheers 8.25.32.37 ( talk) 10:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
First, about simplicity, if you have a simpler demonstration please provide it. Second, your personal taste does not matter. Third, the article lacks a stand alone proof 8.25.32.37 ( talk) 01:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. The proof you are providing is indirect and cumbersome. There is no need to refer to a formal limit theory to calculate the value of this series. 72.37.134.11 ( talk) 14:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I've used the {{WikiProject Mathematics}} template to rate this article. It's important to the history of maths, particularly as it documents a method of Archimedes that is an early precursor of the infinitesimal methods of Leibniz and Newton. And it also has current relevance to the creation of mipmaps, through which much of what you see displayed on screens today is processed by the hardware on your computer or phone. But I do wonder whether there's a better title than any arithmetic expression can give …. yoyo ( talk) 21:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)