From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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:

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)
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. 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. --Ed Poor Talk 09:24, 22 February 2013 (EST)