Talk:Product of Rationally Expressible Numbers is Rational

The first "rational" here is the Euclid-rational while the second "rational" here is the really rational... How am I supposed to name this theorem? --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2016 (EST)


 * The answer is that you're not "supposed" to change it to anything. If you believe a page is misnamed, the best approach is to invoke the "rename" template. --prime mover (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2016 (EST)


 * After some thought, I think I have a name. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2016 (EST)


 * Are any of those names backed up in the literature? --prime mover (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2016 (EST)


 * No, but this book from 1926 calls it "expressible". Judge which name is better. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2016 (EST)
 * It turns out that the translation "expressible" is also from Heath. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2016 (EST)
 * Which is from Johan Ludvig Heiberg's Latin translation in 1883. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:07, 6 November 2016 (EST)
 * Unfortunately, Euclid's Elements 1714 Barrow translation into English also uses "rational". --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2016 (EST)
 * The Spanish translation given on Wikisource uses the phrases "racionalmente expresable" (rationally expressible) and "no racionalmente expresable" (rationally non-expressible). --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2016 (EST)

That concludes my search in literature. What do you think? --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2016 (EST)


 * "Rationally expressible" then, I suppose. I trust you are going to go through the whole of Book X and amend appropriately? --prime mover (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2016 (EST)


 * Surely. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2016 (EST)

What should the doubly irrational numbers be called? The Spanish translation cited above calls them "no racionalmente expresable" (rationally non-expressible). I do not prefer just "irrational" because it is not accurate enough. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:03, 6 November 2016 (EST)


 * "Not rationally expressible" should do. After all, this definition is not going to be needed on a widespread basis because it is relevant only for book X. --prime mover (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2016 (EST)


 * Then whence the fuss about literature search? --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2016 (EST)


 * Because when I made the suggestion to search the literature, you had not come up with "rationally expressible" at all. --prime mover (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2016 (EST)