View source for Talk:Chinese Remainder Theorem/Introductory

This is an experiment with writing style rather than anything else. I'd like to know whether such a style is acceptable, or you prefer something more formal (like Statement-Proof-Discussion format), or you would like to see some more "introductory" material. Please, share your opinions :).--[[User:Fedja|Fedja]] 17:17, 21 June 2006 (EDT)

== More Info ==

The writing style is fine, in my opinion.  However, I'm not sure that this covers the entire CRT; I'll try to add some more stuff.  There was a nice discussion of this in the SC forum. --[[User:Mysmartmouth|Sean]] 23:29, 22 June 2006 (EDT)

I think that the topic should perhaps be split into a beginning and an advanced article (or maybe even introductory, intermediate, and olympiad articles), because while without reading it carefully, the article probably looks like it's a good introduction for less experienced students; it is also quite possible for a student to become quite advanced without knowing what the words "Chinese Remainder Theorem" mean, and for those students, this article would not be very helpful. &mdash;[[User:Boy Soprano II|Boy Soprano II]] 20:16, 21 October 2006 (EDT)


== help ==

I didn't understand any of this part, the writing was unclear:
"The standard solution is to notice that the number of fish plus 1 is divisible by each of the numbers 2, 3 and 5. Since they are pairwise relatively prime, by their product  and any number that, after adding 1 becomes divisible by 30 can be an answer to the problem (so he might catch 29, 59, 89, and so on fishes). That is fine, but the question remains: what would happen if instead of the numbers 2, 3, and 5 and remainders 1, 2, and 4, we had some other numbers and remainders? The most general question one may ask here is the following:"

I tried to sort it as well as I could.

Thanks,
 inscrutableroot

==Fixed==
I fixed the text by splitting long sentences into shorter ones and introducing some notation. Is it clear now? --[[User:Fedja|Fedja]] 10:50, 25 June 2006 (EDT)