Talk:Pascal's triangle
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error |
Content from binomial theorem
edit@Jacobolus: Hey, I imported the content about Pascal's triangle here, but I think that the page numbers of your sources are a bit too vague (like 17-61 or 97-157. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The extented to infinity triangle of aleph zero
editWhat are you thinking about my article? https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_extented_to_infinity_triangle_of_aleph_zero MichalMozejko (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Phrasing/Potential need to rewrite
editUnder Relation to geometry of polytopes, there are several instances where phrasing is weird and might benefit from a rewrite. I would appreciate any insight before making changes.
For example, at the end of the first subsection it says: "This new vertex is joined to every element in the original simplex to yield a new element of one higher dimension in the new simplex, and this is the origin of the pattern found to be identical to that seen in Pascal's triangle." This feels out of place when reading, and also somewhat repetitive to things stated prior.
Generally speaking, several points end in a way that feels abrupt and makes explanation difficult to follow. There is also a lot of restating that feels shoved in and not actually beneficial to material. EM 1NH3 (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
To arbitrary bases section ...
edit... is a total nightmare, largely incomprehensible, with dubious use of both sources and wikilinks. I see that it was added with a pointer to a talk-page discussion in which two editors (myself and Mgnbar) objected to it and no one but the proposer agreed. Can anyone do anything about it? --JBL (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
The 1st figure of this Article seems blank.
editHi. Currently, the 1st figure of this Article seems blank or empty. I'm using the dark mode of the Wikipedia, and it seems a complete white. This issue seems to be fixed. This issue also affects other articles using the same figure, such as Binomial Theorem. Goodphy (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Hello! Why not to correct the three images in the same way as it was done at Binomial theorem. Let us fix the issue. ~2026-22039-85 (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)