Difference between revisions of "Talk:Integer"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(can we use this standard?)
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)

Revision as of 22:25, November 19, 2008

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)