Neologism edit
According to the Wayback Machine, Markus Kuhn's first use of this term on his web page is in Oct. 2002, this version. A few books on ISO paper size have used it since 2006. There's no evidence that it's an accepted term, and it doesn't seem likely that the world is going to rename the square root of two any time soon. If it's worth a mention at all, it should be in the square root of 2 article. See WP:Neologism. Dicklyon (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- I find five books published in the 21st century in which the term appears, and one of those asserts that the term has some currency among those who work with this sort of thing. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I only find 3; can you point out more? The term was only proposed in 2002, so of course it's only in 21st-century books. The 3 I find talk about it only in the context of ISO paper sizes. I'm not sure they rise to satisfy the guideline "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Can you point out the book talks about it as a term with some currency? If it's worth keeping, we should make it clear that it's not a mathematical term, but a paper industry term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs)
- But still the fact that cutting it in half yields two rectangles with the same shape as the original is mathematical. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I only find 3; can you point out more? The term was only proposed in 2002, so of course it's only in 21st-century books. The 3 I find talk about it only in the context of ISO paper sizes. I'm not sure they rise to satisfy the guideline "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Can you point out the book talks about it as a term with some currency? If it's worth keeping, we should make it clear that it's not a mathematical term, but a paper industry term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs)
- Number story: from counting to cryptography – page 71 Peter M. Higgins – 2008
- Dictionary of distances – page 344 Elena Deza, M. Deza – 2006
- The story of measurement Andrew Robinson – 2007
- Encyclopedia of Distances – page 500 Michel M. Deza, Elena Deza – 2009
- The square root of 2: a dialogue concerning a number and a sequence – 2006 page 46, by David Flannery
Michael Hardy (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's mathematical. Some guy in 2002 proposed a new name for the square root of 2. There's not much evidence that it's catching on; the only thing new is the term, and the only context it's used in is paper. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, Kuhn's article cites a 18th Century original source - with ISBN - for a mathematical concept, which suggests that this is not literally a Neologism? Somersetlevels (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. Nobody objects to crediting Lichtenberg for the idea of making sheets of papers in root-2 aspect ratio. But we don't need an article on a new name for the ratio. Maybe this calls for a merge proposal, where we could even mention that Kuhn proposed this new name and that in the paper regime some actually use it (though I'm skeptical that anyone but a handful of writers have actually used it). Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Since the name is used in some books, it is possible that someone will look it up in Wikipedia; therefore Wikipedia should have info about it.
Merging into the ISO article does not seem appropriate since that standard also specifies a base area (1 sq meter) whereas the 1:sqrt(2) ratio does not depend on that. Moreover the properties of the aspect ratio are relevant to other domains too. (I used it myself in meshes for numerical computing, but didn't know the name or history.)
Perhaps it could be merged into sqrt(2) article, and 'Lichtenberg ratio' and 'silver ratio' be mentioned in the lead as alternate names for the constant. (However, these names are specific to the *aspect* ratio of *rectangles*, not, say to diagonals of squares...)
Jorge Stolfi (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, given its lack of notability, it is a good candidate for a merge. Let's do that. I reverted your edit so the maint tags would stay until we do. The ref you added is certainly marginal per WP:RS, and doesn't help with notability much, but might be OK if you don't try to pretend it does. Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- See Talk:ISO_216#Merge_from_Lichtenberg_ratio where there was no objection, and some encouragement, for the proposed move. You want to do it? Or me? Dicklyon (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)