Talk:Resolvent cubic

Latest comment: 12 years ago by JamesBWatson

There is something wrong with this article, because in the expression "cubic resolvent" (sic), it is the "resolvent" that is the noun, and "cubic" that is the adjective; not the other way around.

Furthermore, the term "resolvent" refers to an equation, not to an expression/polynomial.

Thus the "cubic resolvent" is an equation that involves a cubic polynomial.

This Wikipedia page ought to be removed, and a better one written under the heading "cubic resolvent" (terms reversed).

Proper use of language also means that "an equation is solved", but "a root is found". You can't solve a root. That's just plain bad language. (irritating when you're looking for serious entries). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.255.97 (talkcontribs) 01:56, 14 May 2012‎

The expression "resolvent cubic" is in common use for this concept, whether you or I or anyone else thinks that it logically should be or not. Google searches suggest that it may be more common than "cubic resolvent", though that is not a totally reliable test. Generally speaking, Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that we use the title which is most commonly recognised in English, whether or not we think it is a good title.
I have searched, and every source I have seen defines the resolvent as being a polynomial, not an equation. See, for example, Integers, Polynomials, and Rings: A Course in Algebra by Ronald S. Irving, page 163.
You are quite right in saying that one solves an equation but finds roots, and I have corrected that. (You could have done so.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply