Jump to content

Talk:Richard K. Guy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

Is this the same Richard K. Guy who composed endgame studies and was co-divisor of the GBR code (that one was born in 1916)? Seems more than possible from the bio given in this article, but I don't know. --Camembert 17:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so - this [1] describes the endgame study author as Professor of Mathematics at the University of Calgary from 1965-1982, which is definitely the same person. Hv 18:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted; thanks. I shall add a mention of his activity in that field to the article. --Camembert 19:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom?

[edit]

The stub sorting says that Guy is a UK mathematician, but nothing in the article itself says this! —Toby Bartels 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an article with many interesting notes on Richard K. Guy. It may be useful, it is an interview with the same.

A Conversation with Richard K. Guy Donald J. Albers, Gerald L. Alexanderson, Richard K. Guy The College Mathematics Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Mar., 1993), pp. 122-148 87.11.18.205 19:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly the previous article, Richard Kenneth Guy was born in Nuncaton, Warwickshire 87.11.18.205 19:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard K. Guy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure of his death?

[edit]

This source [2] when I check its "About" page doesn't install in me the utmost confidence that we can use it to confirm a death, and given any lack of collaboration online, and that we're getting citogenesis now with Twitter pointing back to Wikipedia, I think we need something stronger as evidence of his death. --Masem (t) 14:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original tweets reporting his death don't link back to Wikipedia though. They report it first hand. Write ups for academics are always very slow at coming out after they die and universities are notoriously unreliable for putting anything up at all. The source we have at the moment is acceptable for the time being. Something more substantial will appear later. --Jkaharper (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a BLP, I would think something substantial would be needed to begin with. The whole 'we aren't a news ticker' and all that; accuracy, especially in the case of deaths, should be above all else. Kees08 (Talk) 14:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said substantial, not reliable. By substantial I mean a newspaper write up or obituary that will also give us additional details like place of death. That is obviously preferred and will replace the source currently being used if/when it comes around. As for the source currently being used, I see no obvious reasons why it should be considered unreliable. What are your concerns with it? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a blog-ish website (based on their description) that could have saw he died from Wikipedia. Not convinced the editors confirmed the death. I am not surprised/doubting that he died (he was 103!), just saying we might want to wait a couple of days until a more reliable source comes out. I also have no reason to doubt the editor who in their edit summary said a mutual friend informed them of Guy's death. I usually work with deaths of academics, so if this is far outside the norm it can be ignored I suppose. Kees08 (Talk) 16:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source: [3]. Guy served on the board of the Number Theory Foundation for twenty years, and worked and lived in Calgary where another board member is based. I think it's reasonable to assume they have first hand knowledge. The NTF has been around for a long time and is well known in the number theory community; I don't think they would update their web page unless they were sure. Frobitz (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that UCalgary's confirmed, there's no question to doubt, they'd know. --Masem (t) 03:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_K._Guy&oldid=1212697492"