Talk:Integer - Revision history

Ed Poor: We need a scalpel, not an axe

2013-02-22T14:24:46Z

We need a scalpel, not an axe

DanAP: /* Still confusing */

2013-02-22T14:19:36Z

Still confusing

Ed Poor: To Dan

2013-02-22T14:13:33Z

To Dan

DanAP at 14:07, February 22, 2013

2013-02-22T14:07:59Z

Ed Poor: help me reduce the confusion please

2013-02-22T14:03:29Z

help me reduce the confusion please

BRichtigen at 22:25, November 19, 2008

2008-11-19T22:25:35Z

Ed Poor: can we use this standard?

2008-11-19T17:36:16Z

can we use this standard?

Ed Poor: We need to provide simple and reliable definitions

2008-11-19T17:27:48Z

We need to provide simple and reliable definitions

New page

*positive integers: are these called [[counting numbers]], [[natural numbers]], or [[whole numbers]]?
*zero and the positive integers: what are these called (besides "nonnegative integers"?)

We need to provide simple and reliable definitions. Students are looking to us for answers. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:24, February 22, 2013
Line 26:		Line 26:

	:::OK, I'll look forward to it. In the meantime, should we just delete the incomprehensible stuff? It's not as if most readers need it, and it just makes things more difficult, except for, like you said, less than 1% of the readers. [[User:DanAP\|DanAP]] 09:19, 22 February 2013 (EST)		:::OK, I'll look forward to it. In the meantime, should we just delete the incomprehensible stuff? It's not as if most readers need it, and it just makes things more difficult, except for, like you said, less than 1% of the readers. [[User:DanAP\|DanAP]] 09:19, 22 February 2013 (EST)
		+
		+	::It's not incomprehensible, it's just advanced. Let's simply put the formal definitions at the end of the article. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:24, 22 February 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:19, February 22, 2013
Line 24:		Line 24:

	::Some contributors make a big deal about adding info to the encyclopedia which is at such a high academic level that less than 1% of our readers can follow it. They have defied repeated requests to provide gentle introductions to these advanced concepts, almost as if they '''want''' to make our encyclopedia inaccessible. See my essay (soon to be written) on [[Campaign to make Conservapedia unusable]]. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 22 February 2013 (EST)		::Some contributors make a big deal about adding info to the encyclopedia which is at such a high academic level that less than 1% of our readers can follow it. They have defied repeated requests to provide gentle introductions to these advanced concepts, almost as if they '''want''' to make our encyclopedia inaccessible. See my essay (soon to be written) on [[Campaign to make Conservapedia unusable]]. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 22 February 2013 (EST)
		+
		+	:::OK, I'll look forward to it. In the meantime, should we just delete the incomprehensible stuff? It's not as if most readers need it, and it just makes things more difficult, except for, like you said, less than 1% of the readers. [[User:DanAP\|DanAP]] 09:19, 22 February 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:13, February 22, 2013
Line 22:		Line 22:

	:Do we even need the confusing symbols, like the big Z? 99% of our readers aren't interested in that. Maybe all that kind of stuff should be deleted? [[User:DanAP\|DanAP]] 09:07, 22 February 2013 (EST)		:Do we even need the confusing symbols, like the big Z? 99% of our readers aren't interested in that. Maybe all that kind of stuff should be deleted? [[User:DanAP\|DanAP]] 09:07, 22 February 2013 (EST)
		+
		+	::Some contributors make a big deal about adding info to the encyclopedia which is at such a high academic level that less than 1% of our readers can follow it. They have defied repeated requests to provide gentle introductions to these advanced concepts, almost as if they '''want''' to make our encyclopedia inaccessible. See my essay (soon to be written) on [[Campaign to make Conservapedia unusable]]. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 22 February 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:07, February 22, 2013
Line 20:		Line 20:

	Coming back almost 5 years later, I see confusion between university-level definitions which only 1% of our readers will care about, and elementary school usage. Let's put the [[formal definition]]s at the end of the article, in case anyone needs that advanced info - but let's not confuse the ordinary or typical reader. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:03, 22 February 2013 (EST)		Coming back almost 5 years later, I see confusion between university-level definitions which only 1% of our readers will care about, and elementary school usage. Let's put the [[formal definition]]s at the end of the article, in case anyone needs that advanced info - but let's not confuse the ordinary or typical reader. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:03, 22 February 2013 (EST)
		+
		+	:Do we even need the confusing symbols, like the big Z? 99% of our readers aren't interested in that. Maybe all that kind of stuff should be deleted? [[User:DanAP\|DanAP]] 09:07, 22 February 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:03, February 22, 2013
Line 16:		Line 16:

	:I'd prefer the ''standard'' of [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WholeNumber.html MathWorld]. We should try to avoid the intrinsic ambiguity of the term ''whole numbers'' --[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 17:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)		:I'd prefer the ''standard'' of [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WholeNumber.html MathWorld]. We should try to avoid the intrinsic ambiguity of the term ''whole numbers'' --[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 17:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	==Still confusing==
		+
		+	Coming back almost 5 years later, I see confusion between university-level definitions which only 1% of our readers will care about, and elementary school usage. Let's put the [[formal definition]]s at the end of the article, in case anyone needs that advanced info - but let's not confuse the ordinary or typical reader. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 09:03, 22 February 2013 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:25, November 19, 2008
Line 14:		Line 14:

	Allowing negatives => Integers: ... -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, …		Allowing negatives => Integers: ... -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, …
		+
		+	:I'd prefer the ''standard'' of [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WholeNumber.html MathWorld]. We should try to avoid the intrinsic ambiguity of the term ''whole numbers'' --[[User:BRichtigen\|BRichtigen]] 17:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:36, November 19, 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:

	We need to provide simple and reliable definitions. Students are looking to us for answers. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 12:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)		We need to provide simple and reliable definitions. Students are looking to us for answers. --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 12:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	I like this web site:
		+
		+	http://www.mathsisfun.com/whole-numbers.html
		+
		+
		+	Counting Numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, …
		+
		+	Including zero we get Whole Numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, …
		+
		+	Allowing negatives => Integers: ... -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, …