Talk:P-adic number

message: why is it that wiki math articles have the worst intros, from the POV of readability by a general reader
this article's intro is not pitched for a general reader; it, to use a technical term from higher math, sucks
these are better but still not good
I am just so pissed off that you math people in general - not just this article - do such a bad job
shame on you
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the-towering-p-adic-numbers-work-20201019/
https://divisbyzero.com/2008/11/24/what-are-p-adic-numbers/
:Thanks for the suggestions. I've added a link to the Quanta magazine article to the External links section. I'll look at possible ways to improve the intro, but many math topics are difficult to explain even for specialists. Also please add "--~~~~ to the end of your comments. This adds you signature.--agr (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: lousy intro

message: I removed the section "Introduction" with the edit summary "rm the section as WP:OR, confusing, and/or out of scope: As 10 is not prime, the "10-adic absolute value" that is considered here is not an absolute value, and the strange resulting properties do not help to understand the subject of the article". This has been reverted. 
So I have tagged the section, and explain here whic this section must be removed. This section is aimed to introduce the subject of the article which is p-adic numbers. In the literature, these numbers are defined only when  is prime. So, introducing the subject with  is already confusing, as 10 is not prime. Moreover, the fact that 10 is not prime induces complications that makes the introduction harder to understand than the subject of the article, and leads to nonsensical assertions, such the definition of an "absolute value" that is explicitly said to not be an absolute value (moreover this caveat is in a footnote, and this makes the section even more confusing for readers who do not spent time to open footnotes).
I intended to remove this section again, but it appeared to me that the whole article has similar issues. Especially, I have not found any workable definition of p-adic integers and p-adic numbers. So, I'll add the lacking information before removing the present mess. D.Lazard (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Introduction" 

message: # Bind  to the formula.
# Bind  to its role in the iteration.
# Remove misplaced "with the order of digits reversed".
# Make the value of  explicit.
# Not the order of the digits is reversed, but their production wrt. significance.
# Make explicit the "integer part".
# The sign in -\frac 13=2+3\cdot 5 + 1\cdot 5^2 +\frac {-1}3\cdot 5^3 has to be omitted.
# Show the order of the digits in the standard notation.
―Nomen4Omen (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to rescue the section „''p''-adic expansion of rational numbers” 

message: The order of the sections was confusing. In particular, the p-adic expansion of a rational number into a p-adic series was described before the definition of a p-adic series. So, I have written a section "p-adic series". This is only after publishing it that I saw that a section existed already with this title, in a style that resemble to mine. In fact, it is myself who partially wrote the section two year ago.
So, these two sections need to be merged, and I will do this soon. However, the old section contains some mistakes. Mainly that, with the chosen definition of p-adic series, the sum of two p-adic series is not always a p-adic series. D.Lazard (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . The subsequent sections still require to be updated and upgraded. D.Lazard (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  OOOPS