# Difference between revisions of "Talk:Integer"

From Conservapedia

(To Dan) |
|||

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) |

## Revision as of 10:13, 22 February 2013

- 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. --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)

- 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? 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. --Ed Poor^{Talk}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