# Talk:Viète's formula

Need date for Viète's formula.
—DIV (128.250.204.118 08:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

The formulation of the above is not exquisite ... Viete died one century before Euler's birth. 
I'd see for that : The above formula is now considered as a result of one of Leonhard Euler's formula - branded more than one century after (if we may get those dates). Thank you.  -- DLL   .. T 17:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

could you give the complete name of (J. Munkhammar, pers. comm., April 27, 2000). including title and complete name of magezin?? --217.224.182.167 (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a suggested addition to the content, with reference.  I have requested similar text be added to the page Thomas J. Osler and Wallis product.
In 1999, American mathematician Thomas J. Osler discovered that Viète's formula and the Wallis product (1656) are two special cases of a more general infinite product, which has been referred to as the Osler product by Arndt and Haenel, according to whom:
"The Osler product [which takes a parameter 
  
    
      
        p
      
    
    {\displaystyle p}
  
] turns into the Viète product as 
  
    
      
        p
      
    
    {\displaystyle p}
  
 tends to infinity, and is equal to the Wallis product when 
  
    
      
        p
        =
        0
      
    
    {\displaystyle p=0}
  
.  In the intermediate cases 
  
    
      
        p
        =
        1
      
    
    {\displaystyle p=1}
  
, 
  
    
      
        p
        =
        2
      
    
    {\displaystyle p=2}
  
, etc., we obtain combined Viète- and Wallis-like products"
Will an appropriate editor please make this addition?  I have a COI.  Thank you!Skymath1 (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I added a mention to the Thomas J. Osler article.  I'm not convinced that mention is WP:DUE in this article, however.  From a quick look through the literature, there appears to be a modest industry in finding formulas relating Viète and Wallis.  Osler's result has modest citations in this area.  It might be possible to write a section on relations between the two formulas (that is, to put Osler's result into context), but this would be a larger project. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Well now, doesn't this beg the question of what exactly an "infinite process" is? Why wouldn't the harmonic series count? It's quite well known that Oresme proved the divergence of the harmonic series c. 1360. 
Please give a clear argument why the harmonic series is not considered an "infinite process," including a suitable definition of the latter.
- Off Use 2601:647:C900:B6C0:99ED:F4A6:FA90:CDFA (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You are missing a key word in your reading. It says it is "the first formula of European mathematics to represent an infinite process". The harmonic series can be represented in modern notation as a formula, but I suspect that Oresme did not use a formula to describe it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)