Talk:Kronecker's theorem

Two separate theorems?

As of this edit I have deleted nearly all of the unsourced text on the result in diophantine approximations, giving precedence to the result in field theory. What's left is just enough to acknowledge that the result in DA exists.

I think that the DA result may be more important (judging by the numerous articles linking to it) but I don't see any merit in keeping in unsourced claims.

If anyone knowledgeable about DAs (I'm certainly not) could contribute some citations then the article could be rebuilt and that would be very helpful.

--Paul Carpenter (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This result is easily sourced: it is in the Springer Encyclopedia, on MathWorld as "Kronecker's Approximation Theorem", in Hardy&Wright, and so on. The removal and the edit summary were really too aggressive, considering the material is basic and had been in for five years. Why not ask me for a reference? Charles Matthews (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

So long as it's sourced now, that's okay. Looking at the history I left the unreferenced tag in for only a day - in retrospect I should probably have left it in for a week or so. Even then, unsourced information shouldn't really be just left there. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No, really, a week is too short by far in most cases. WP:NOCITE explains that only in the case of material that is doubtful and harmful is it justified to take steps to remove material flagged as unreferenced. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

The equidistribution theorem says that the orbit is equidistributed, which is a stronger condition than being dense.99.231.65.91 (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes you're right, I've corrected this to saying it's a generalization of Dirichlet's theorem. HeideHuner (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous?

"infinite cyclic subgroup" means the set $\{nP\mod 1|n\in \mathbb {Z} \}$ or $\{\alpha P\mod 1|n\in \mathbb {R} \}$? Infovarius (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The former. It is not ambiguous. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)