Difference between revisions of "Talk:Integer"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(help me reduce the confusion please)
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)

Revision as of 10:03, 22 February 2013

We need to provide simple and reliable definitions. Students are looking to us for answers. --Ed Poor Talk 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, …

I'd prefer the standard of MathWorld. We should try to avoid the intrinsic ambiguity of the term whole numbers --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 definitions at the end of the article, in case anyone needs that advanced info - but let's not confuse the ordinary or typical reader. --Ed Poor Talk 09:03, 22 February 2013 (EST)