# Talk:Integer

From Conservapedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) at 08:13, 22 February 2013. It may differ significantly from current revision.

- 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