Talk:Gelfond's constant

message: Regarding the new section "Interesting facts", I think that the first 
sentence should refer to "Gelfond's constant", not Gelfond-Schneider.  Also, 
it isn't clear see why this is interesting.  Explaining the link to the j-function would make things clearer.   —Daphne A 12:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction

message: I added MathWorld's reference for Nesterenko's proof, but can't check it at the moment.  Could someone please verify? --Tardis 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it's coming at the same fact from two different perspectives. That makes the fact much easier to process for people unfamiliar with Gelfond's constant, and the principle applies for any mathematics-related articles in general. --54x 08:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for <math>\pi+e^\pi\,</math> 

message: The iteration was wrong. I corrected it with the help of Wolfram's website and a spreadsheet but I do not understand why it works. Anybody would like to give a motivation for this formula? And what will seed values other than 1/\sqrt{2} do? HannsEwald (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numerical Value 

message: The algebraic manipulation leading to (-1)^(-i) is interesting, but also a bit confusing: it should be explained why one cannot write  e^π = (e^(-iπ))^i = (-1)^i  , or the -1 in the above as e^(-iπ), which yields  e^(-π) = 0.04.... — MFH:Talk 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One can write either of these things. Complex exponentiation is multivalued, and for the Gelfond–Schneider theorem to apply it suffices that one of the possible values of (−1)−i is the number we want, i.e.,  eπ. In general, the values of (−1)−i = (−1)i are all numbers of the form e(2k+1)π, where k is an integer. — Emil J. 13:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While eπ is a value of (-1)i, it is misleading to write eπ = (e(iπ))(-i), since the latter is really a set of values.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.97.202 (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  (-1)^(-i) 

message: Just as there are lots of people that like staring at decimal expansions of irrational numbers, there are bound to be lots of people who get the same kind of satisfaction staring at hexadecimal expansions.
I think the main article could be improved if someone were to give the hexadecimal equivalent of the decimal series in the article.   True, they are the same number but for the shift in base, but I still think it would improve the main article.
And giving it to 20 digits might be helpful also.   Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about in hex? 

message: If e to the power of pi is Gelfond's constant, then what is pi to the power of e?
The main article should indicate whether this other constant has a name, or whether it has any interesting properties at all.   Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: pi**e = 22.45915771836 87.102.44.18 (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switching number and exponent? 

message: The reference [4] in Geometric peculiarity is not complete. Can it be verified?
"Connolly, Francis. University of Notre Dame[full citation needed]"
Is the Geometric peculiarity statement even valid?
John W. Nicholson (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t know about the reference, but the statement is obviously valid, this is just the power series for exp.—Emil J. 15:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geometric peculiarity reference? 

message: The article does not provide any reference for the name 'Gelfond's constant'.
As far as I see, the name was given by MathWorld, but Wikipedia does not have to follow without secondary source.
The attribution to Gelfond is rather gratuitous and not very respectful of him and previous mathematicians.
147.210.245.180 (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for the name 'Gelfond's constant' ?