Talk:Carmichael 3 strong pseudoprimes: Difference between revisions
Talk:Carmichael 3 strong pseudoprimes (view source)
Revision as of 10:49, 25 September 2016
, 7 years agoFirefox happens to be in the minority in respect of how it handles formulae
(Firefox happens to be in the minority in respect of how it handles formulae) |
|||
Line 5:
:Huh? Firefox is a "minority" class browser? But yes, I have just dabbled with IE8 and indeed the formula is not rendered, instead there appears a box with a big red cross in it. Much the same happens when IE8 is pointed at wikipedia's Fibonacci_number article where their formulae do not appear either. The W. formula is slightly different and possibly I rearranged it a little - I don't quite recall where I found it, but I never expected this inability! Similar formula preparation language has been available in OpenOffice's text editor for some years now, for example, and I though it relatively standard. However, via mathproofs.blogspot.com I've found an image of the formula, but I'm not familiar with inserting such into Rosettacode... I could of course rewrite the formula in Fortran source style, but that lacks the far more pleasing layout and glyphs of the mathematical formula. [[User:Dinosaur|Dinosaur]] ([[User talk:Dinosaur|talk]]) 10:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
:: Yes, Firefox happens to be in the minority in respect of how it handles formulae (local processing of MathML, where requisite fonts are available) – most browsers currently take the route of displaying the graphic file). Support for the MathML route is at about 25%, and excludes Chrome, IE/Draft, and Safari. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 10:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
:: If it looks hard to get your formula to display in the majority of browsers, perhaps an explanatory to the reader ? [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 10:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
==clarification of Carmichael 3 strong pseudomprimes==
| |||