Talk:Arithmetic

Arithmetic has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 21, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arithmetic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days

	Arithmetic has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 30, 2023 Good article nominee Not listed March 21, 2024 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 11, 2024. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that 1 + 1 = 1, according to some forms of non-Diophantine arithmetic?
Current status: Good article

This  level-2 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics High‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles High This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.

Don't you think "numeralization of the null concept" should be changed to "invention of zero"? If not, I think at least "numeralization of the null concept (invention of zero)" should be written instead. This would be much clearer. A.Z.

I was thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. There is still a lot to do since the article has various problems in its current form. Its sourcing needs a lot of work. It further lacks various key topics, like a proper explanation of the difference between different types of numbers and numbering systems. The history section contains very little about developments after the Middle Ages. The arithmetic operations of exponentiation and logarithm are not properly discussed. There also should be more on the foundations and axiomatizations of arithmetic.

I was thinking about doing more in-depth research and preparing a draft to address and implement the ideas pointed out here. It will take me a while to go through the sources. Feedback on these ideas and other suggestions are welcome. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Nevertheless, instead of a global draft, it would be better to work one section after the other. This would make be the discussion easier. Also, you may be bold and make your change directly in the article. If everybody agree with your change, this will be OK. Otherwise, you will probably be reverted per WP:BRD, and this will allow discussing only the points of disagreement. D.Lazard (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@D.Lazard: That's a good idea about adding the changes section-wise instead of all in one go. I'm not sure how feasible it is to implement the changes incrementally and directly in the article without a draft. The problem I see is that quite a few substantial changes would be needed to prepare the article for a GA nomination. I have to do a proper literature review anyways before I make any non-trivial changes and I usually take notes and make drafts as I go along. I intend to keep you in the loop to ensure that I don't stray too far from the expected direction. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make a draft if you prefer.

I'd recommend predominantly focusing on pen-and-paper positional base-ten arithmetic, which is what the word "arithmetic" typically refers to, what I would expect most readers to be looking for when they arrive here, and which is already a pretty broad scope about which plenty can be said to fill a long article, especially if you add discussion of arithmetic pedagogy/curriculum, the use of arithmetic in society, the role of changing technology, and so on, then mostly leaving broader questions about other number systems, other kinds of calculation methods (counting boards, slide rules, computer algorithms, ...), number theory, formal axiomatizations, etc. to other articles with a more directly relevant scope.

I'd personally recommend moving the history section much further down the page. It would be great to fill out History of arithmetic in much greater detail (ideally this could be 5000+ words; cf. the Russian version ru:История_арифметики [machine translation]), with just a summary (no more than maybe 2000 words) at Arithmetic § History. It would be especially nice for someone to do some proper research into medieval Islamic material (e.g. Abu'l-Hasan al-Uqlidisi), which is not very well covered anywhere on Wikipedia.

–jacobolus (t) 12:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobolus: Your explanation of how to handle the history section is a good example of how to approach this kind of overview article by following WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. You are right that for topics like this one, the history section is usually better placed at the end.

I agree that it's important to keep the reader's expectations in mind when writing this type of article, for example, regarding a more detailed explanation of positional base-ten arithmetic. However, one of the GA criteria is that the article covers all the major aspects of the topic. To fulfill it, I think we have to discuss arithmetic in its widest sense and not just what people familiar with elementary arithmetic from school expect. One danger especially common among math articles is to make discussion of difficult topics overly technical by filling sections with formal definitions and jargon. We'll have to see how it goes in relation to discussions of topics like alternative number systems and the foundations of arithmetic. I think we can't just skip these topics so we'll have to struggle to make them accessible. As for length, I usually aim at a readable prose size of 40-50kB as per WP:SIZERULE but this is difficult to plan in advance. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

have to discuss arithmetic in its widest sense – The word "arithmetic" is sometimes used very broadly to include all of number theory, e.g. see the title of Gauss's Disquisitiones Arithmeticae or Serre's Cours d'arithmétique. Broadening the scope like that is not useful for readers and not manageable for a single article here unless it gets turned into a high-level summary overview, which is frankly not that helpful for this kind of case, because it necessarily significantly detracts from the attention available for the topic of "arithmetic" meaning mathematical calculations of the type used in school or everyday life, which, as I said, I think is already more than wide enough a scope to fill out an arbitrarily long article.

A "good" Wikipedia article just has to cover its own self-defined scope, it doesn't have to cover every sense of the title ever used by anyone (that's what disambiguation pages are for). This article should mention much broader interpretations of the word "arithmetic", but I think it's a mistake to focus significant attention on them. –jacobolus (t) 16:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this point. I agree that Wikipedia articles do not need to focus on every meaning of its title term and leave that to disambiguation pages. Delimiting the scope of this article might be a good idea before getting started with any major changes. I guess the best approach here would be not to decide ourselves on the scope of the article but to consult how reliable overview sources treat this topic and follow their lead.

• According to the Encyclopedia of Mathematics, arithmetic is The science of numbers and operations on sets of numbers. Arithmetic is understood to include problems on the origin and development of the concept of a number, methods and means of calculation, the study of operations on numbers of different kinds, as well as analysis of the axiomatic structure of number sets and the properties of numbers.
• The Arithmetic entry in the Gale Encyclopedia of Science states that Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics concerned with the numerical manipulation of numbers using the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and the extraction of roots". Its entry includes discussions of different types of numbers (natural, rational,...), numbering systems, and axioms.
• From the Facts On File Encyclopedia of Mathematics: The branch of mathematics concerned with computations using numbers is called arithmetic. This can involve a number of specific topics—the study of operations on numbers, such as ADDITION, MULTIPLICATION, SUBTRACTION, DIVISION, and SQUARE ROOTs, needed to solve numerical problems; the methods needed to change numbers from one form to another (such as the conversion of fractions to decimals and vice versa); or the abstract study of the NUMBER SYSTEMS, NUMBER THEORY, and general operations on sets as defined by GROUP THEORY and MODULAR ARITHMETIC, for instance.

I'm not sure if the scope discussed in these definitions is roughly what you had in mind. If you have some reliable overview sources that provide a very different outlook then I would be interested to have a look at them. I agree with you that there are many advantages to focusing on the simpler aspects of this topic. For example, even if number theory should be included, it would probably be a bad idea to dive into all its intricacies. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these encyclopedias pick a very reader-relevant scope, to be honest. They are overly focused on recent theoretical developments in pure mathematics (past 2 centuries or so) at the expense of punting on covering the primary topic beyond a bare sketch.

In theory this article could cover anything with either "arithmetic" in the name or broadly relevant to calculation. Here are some:

Arithmetical hierarchy, arithmetical set, true arithmetic, Peano axioms, second-order arithmetic, Robinson arithmetic, Büchi arithmetic, Skolem arithmetic, Heyting arithmetic, Presburger arithmetic, primitive recursive arithmetic, elementary function arithmetic, bounded arithmetic, ordinal arithmetic, cardinal arithmetic, non-standard model of arithmetic, hyperarithmetical theory;

Higher arithmetic (number theory), fundamental theorem of arithmetic, arithmetic function, arithmetic dynamics, arithmetic topology, arithmetic geometry, arithmetic combinatorics, arithmetic group, arithmetic Fuchsian group, arithmetic variety, arithmetic surface, arithmetic hyperbolic 3-manifold, arithmetic of abelian varieties, arithmetic number, field arithmetic, arithmetic derivative, arithmetical ring, arithmetic progression topologies;

Arithmetic mean, arithmetic progression, Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions, Roth's theorem on arithmetic progressions, arithmetic–geometric mean, arithmetico-geometric sequence;

Modular arithmetic, residue arithmetic, lunar arithmetic, saturation arithmetic, finite field arithmetic, surreal number (combinatorial game theory), arithmetic billiards;

Hilbert's arithmetic of ends;

Significance arithmetic, interval arithmetic, affine arithmetic, Logarithmic arithmetics;

Binary arithmetic, Location arithmetic, counting board, abacus, counting rods (rod calculus);

slide rule, nomogram;

Floating point arithmetic, arbitrary-precision arithmetic, fixed-point arithmetic, mixed-precision arithmetic, symmetric level-index arithmetic, arithmetic coding, serial number arithmetic, arithmetic logic unit;

Arithmologia, The Foundations of Arithmetic, Philosophy of Arithmetic;

Etc.

But I just don't think most of these topics are that helpful to try to cram together with an article about ordinary "arithmetic" as used on common language. –jacobolus (t) 19:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics has a reasonable definition: Arithmetic: The area of mathematics relating to numerical calculations involving only the basic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and simple powers. The term ‘higher arithmetic’ refers to elementary number theory. –jacobolus (t) 19:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article should not strive to be a complete compendium of everything associated with arithmetic. One way to decide what to include in an article is WP:PROPORTION: An article should...strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, Arithmetic Fuchsian group and many of the other topics mentioned by you should probably not be discussed in detail (or at all) because they do not receive much treatment in reliable sources on the topic. A good way to determine this is to consult reliable overview sources, like the ones I mentioned in my last reply (by the way, they include discussions of the history of arithmetic and do not restrict themselves to pure mathematics in the past 2 centuries). Speculating on what the readers of this article might be interested in is a tricky business and different contributors might have very different opinions on this issue. It could be that many among them are university students who have to take a course in this area and who already know well how to add and multiply numbers. I think the content policy WP:PROPORTION is a better guide in deciding what to include.

I'm not sure whether our disagreement is actual or merely verbal. For example, you "recommend predominantly focusing on ... base-ten arithmetic". I'm in agreement if this means that base-ten arithmetic deserves more weight than other number systems. But I'm in disagreement if this means that other number systems should not be discussed in the article (especially since alternative number systems, like the basics of the binary system, are commonly discussed in school). A similar potential disagreement might be in relation to the foundations of arithmetic. As I see it, they are not the prime focus of the article but they are still an important topic (given their treatment in reliable overview sources) and the article would be incomplete without them. My concern is that it may not be possible to get this article to GA status if these topics are left out. I hope we can resolve these potential points of tension and arrive at some form of compromise that works for both of us. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is just that "arithmetic" means very different things to different people in different historical time periods, and you shouldn't decide that you need to describe all of them just because people used the word "arithmetic" for them.

Conceivably the word "arithmetic" could be considered to mean "anything related to concrete calculations with numbers or similar formal systems".

But I don't think that really gives a good idea of what people typically mean by "arithmetic" in modern times. The number theorists have mostly by now settled on the name "number theory" rather than "higher arithmetic". The logicians and philosophers are often happy with high-level names like "foundations of mathematics" rather than always putting "arithmetic" in the name.

Many of the broader topics can be covered in articles called e.g. computation, calculation, axiomatic system, number, algebraic structure, mathematical operation, etc.

I think it's fine to mention some of these topics but I wouldn't make them nearly so much the primary focus of the article as some of the other encyclopedia articles you have linked.

The most basic subject should in my opinion be the basic structure of rational numbers and written algorithms for calculations with integers, rational fractions, and decimal fractions, including square roots and possibly a bit about other kinds of calculations and the use of pre-printed tables. Then a summary of the history of arithmetic should focus predominately on the history of these, with some side mention of other kinds of calculating methods/tools.

But there are a bunch of other topics that I think are important to mention/discuss at an article about arithmetic that are often not adequately covered. For example, the cognitive basis for arithmetic and development of number sense (not sure our article about has a definition quite matching broad use), mental arithmetic, finger counting and finger reckoning (we don't have a good article about this), the use of arithmetic in society and its changing role(s) over time, the displacement of arithmetic practice by handheld calculators, school pedagogy and curriculum and the role of conceptual understanding vs. memorization in learning arithmetic, arithmetical word problems, the relationship between arithmetic and algebra and difference in problem solving methods and mental models involved, estimation and approximate calculation methods (rounding, significant figures, etc.), the differences between "arithmetical" vs. "instrumental" (originally based on measurements with dividers and various scales or tools like sundials or globes, later the use of slide rules and more sophisticated nomograms) vs. "geometrical" solutions of problems. Ultimately we might consider analytic geometry to be a kind of "arithmetization" of geometry, or more generally modern science to be a kind of arithmetization of the world; some kind of discussion of these seems just as (if not more) important than a detailed description of axiomatization by Peano & al.

–jacobolus (t) 21:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is a great overview of possible topics to include! I'm trying to conceive how the topics mentioned in the last paragraph of your reply could be organized into subsections. Several fall under psychology or numeracy. Some could be grouped together as techniques for counting and calculating, either with or without external tool. Maybe this could be combined with simple algorithems. Some would fit into the current section "Arithmetic in education", which could be expanded. Some concern how arithmetic impacts other areas in mathematics and the sciences. The part about the (changing) role of arithmetic in society might be best included in the history section. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, in its modern meaning, arithmetic is essentially the art of representing numbers and computing with them. So, the article must focus on this, and have sections (without details that belong to specific articles) on

• Integer arithmetic (Hindu-Arabic numerals, bases 10 and 2, algorithms for the operations, from addition with carries to multiplication in ${\displaystyle O(n\log n)}$
• Rational arithmetic, that is, the arithmetic of fractions
• (Approximate) real arithmetic:
  • Decimals and binary numbers as approximations of real numbers
  • Rounding, truncation, relative and absolute error (this may be called "arithmetic of approximations")
  • Scientific notation, floating point arithmetic and their specificities, such as non-associativity of the addition. The problem of exact floating point operations (IEEE754)
• Interval arithmetic
• Modular arithmetic and its application to integer arithmetic through Chinese remainder theorem and Hensel lifting
• Mental arithmetic
• History: This section must explain clearly how the meaning of "arithmetic' has evolved. In particular, despite its name, Arithmetica is not about arithmetic. IMO, counting rods, abaci and slide rules belong to the history section.

This is evidently not a complete list, but all these items belong clearly to arithmetic, and the above items seem a good way to structure the article. D.Lazard (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are all good ideas, I have the impression that we are getting somewhere. My rough idea on how to organize the material into different sections is the following

• Definition
• Basic concepts
  • Numbers
  • Numbering system
  • Arithmetic operations
    • Addition and subtraction
    • Multiplication and division
    • Exponentiation and logarithm
    • Modular arithmetic
    • Compound unit arithmetic
• Laws and fundamental theorems
• Techniques, tools, and algorithms
• Foundations
• History
• In various fields
  • Education
  • Psychology
  • Philosophy
  • Computer
  • Other areas of mathematics and the sciences
  • Everyday life

With this number of sections and subsections, each one would be relatively short and only provide an overview with a link to the main articles that treat the topic in more detail. The section "Definition" covers the basic definition and mentions some of the problems already discussed here, like the difficulty in delimiting its scope and its relation to number theory. It also mentioned the etymology. The subsection "Numbers" explains the different types of numbers (natural, integers, rational,...). It could also cover floating point numbers in relation to rational numbers and maybe rounding and truncation. The subsection "Numbering system" explains the differences between positional and non-positional systems and shows how the same number can be expressed in different systems, for example, as a Roman numeral in contrast to the decimal and binary systems. Maybe we can also mention the Scientific notation here.

The section "Laws and fundamental theorems" discusses things like commutativity, associativity, and the Fundamental theorem of arithmetic. The subsection "Psychology" deals with numeracy, Mental arithmetic, and similar issues. The subsection "Philosophy" mentions some philosophical problems, like whether numbers are real entities or mere fictions. The subsection "Computer" includes information on how arithmetic operations are implemented, including the technical level (Arithmetic logic unit) and things like floating-point arithmetic. Maybe we could also mention cryptography like RSA there.

I'm not sure if this way of dividing the topic can properly deal with your suggested sections of "Integer arithmetic", "Rational arithmetic", and "Real arithmetic". Part of it would be covered in the sections "Numbers" and "Arithmetic operations". If this is not sufficient then we could include them as separate subsections. Interval arithmetic could be discussed in the section "Other areas of mathematics and the sciences". Sorry for the rather lengthy explanation. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "fundamental theorem of arithmetic" is about number theory, and definitely does not deserve a separate section. It can be briefly mentioned in the history section if you like. –jacobolus (t) 16:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the whole article is about "Techniques, tools, and algorithms", so it's also weird to make that a dedicated section. I'm not sure a "Definition" section is particularly necessary. I'd get rid of "Basic concepts" as a top-level section, and aim for a flatter structure, and avoid splitting numbers / number systems / operations which seems like a division which unnecessarily slices single topics into multiple pieces and then scatters them around in a way that will be unnecessarily confusing to readers. I think D.Lazard has a better top-level structure, and you should keep at least arithmetic with integers, rational fractions, and decimal fractions among the first few top-level sections, though his imagined article has a broader scope than what I'd cover if I were writing the article myself. –jacobolus (t) 16:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Hopefully the above doesn't seem too negative. I'm not trying to be a jerk or rain on parades here.) –jacobolus (t) 18:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with removing the heading "Basic concepts" to have a flatter structure. The idea behind the distinction between numbers, numbering systems, and arthimetic operations is the following: numbers are the objects, numbering systems are ways of representing those objects, and arthimetic operations are ways of combining and manipulating those objects. This seems to be a natural rather than an artificial distinction: it's possible to discuss different types of numbers (natural vs rational) without discussing different ways of representing them (decimal or binary) or what operations can be used on them (addition or multiplication). This type of division is also used in some overview works, such as the entry "Arithmetic" in the UXL Encyclopedia of Science. In the process of writing those topics, I'll see if this structure makes sense or if there is a better way to arrange them. I'll try to follow the suggestion of having distinct sections for integer, rational, and real arithmetic. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that the distinction is unnatural. The problem is that your structure then looks like: [Numbers: [integers, common fractions, decimal fractions, (binary fractions, complex numbers, ...?)], number systems: [various representations of integers: [...], representations of fractions; [...], ...], Operations: [operations on integers, operations on fractions, operations on decimal fractions, (operations on binary fractions, operations on complex numbers, ...)], which unnecessarily chops material into little bits and then rearranges it in a way that readers will be continually hopping back and forth between different sections to make sense of it. –jacobolus (t) 11:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my plan to subdivide the sections on numbering systems and arithmetic operations by different types of numbers. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first few sections of this article should in my opinion consist of concrete descriptions and explanations of various arithmetical concepts and methods. Stuff like: the number line and counting in a base-ten positional number system, multi-digit addition/subtraction with carrying, addition and subtraction with negative numbers (integers) possibly mentioning double-entry bookkeeping, "Egyptian" multiplication, long multiplication (and the lattice method) and some mention of the multiplication table, long division with remainder, addition and multiplication of common fractions, etc. –jacobolus (t) 18:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember, we don't have to reproduce the content of number, numeral system, algebraic structure, etc.; this article can focus on arithmetic per se. Aside: I looked at the UXL Encyclopedia's article "Arithmetic" and it's a mediocre mess: poorly organized, poorly written, weirdly conversational, full of speculation and vague nonsense (and significant factual inaccuracies; please don't cite that as a reliable source), and never actually gets around to discussing the topic. –jacobolus (t) 12:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The UXL Encyclopedia belongs to Gale (publisher), which is considered a reliable publisher. It is part of the Wikipedia library, see Wikipedia:Gale. See my response to D.Lazard for the parts on number and our earlier discussion on the scope of arithmetic. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care who the publisher is. The article itself is bad. It reads like a sloppy and informal paraphrase of some other source (which itself had a sort of weird scope/organization) which was then never read over by anyone with expertise in the subject or willingness to double-check factual claims. –jacobolus (t) 18:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the distinction between numbers and numerals is fundamental This the reason for which it must be distinguished between the algebraic properties of arithmetic operations (commutativity, associativity, etc) that are properties of numbers and belong to number theory and .algebra, and the application of these operations to specific numbers that is the true object of arithmetic. Also, if you categorize operations by number systems, you will be faced to many problems such as the following: although decimals and fractions of integers are all rational numbers, addition of decimals is very different from addition of fractions (${\displaystyle 3+{\frac {1}{2}}={\frac {7}{2}}}$ vs. ${\displaystyle 3+0.5=3.5}$). Also, multiplication is not associative with long division (${\displaystyle 1=(3\times 1)/3\neq 3\times (1/3)=0.999\ldots }$). The fact that this inequality of numerals is an equality of numbers is a result of number theory, not really a result of arithmetic, even if it is important in arithmetic. You wrote it's possible to discuss different types of numbers (natural vs rational) without discussing different ways of representing them (decimal or binary) or what operations can be used on them (addition or multiplication). This is exactly the reason for which the sectioning of this article must not follow the sectioning of Number. D.Lazard (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. According to you,

• arithmetic only studies the application of arithmetic operations to specific numbers
• arithmetic does not study the properties or laws of those operations, like commutativity and associativity
• arithmetic does not study any other properties of numbers

Could you provide some reliable overview sources that present the topic in a way that reflects your view on the scope of arithmetic? Because I'm having trouble reconciling your views with the reliable sources I'm aware of. For example, the ones I cited above explicitly discuss things like commutativity and associativity as part of arithmetic but you are saying that they do belong to number theory instead. These sources also paint a different picture of the relation between arithmetic and number theory, for example, the Encyclopedia of Mathematics. From the [1]: Arithmetic is The science of numbers and operations on sets of numbers and includes the ... analysis of the axiomatic structure of number sets and the properties of numbers. From [2]: Number theory is The science of integers. This would mean that number theory is much more narrow than arithmetic.

I'm not in principle against using a more narrow scope for this article but I can only write the article this way if the sources support it. If you know of a few high-quality overview sources that present the topic this way then I would be happy to take a look at them to see if it makes sense to follow the more narrow scope. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number theory is a theoretical pure math subject, in which the topic about which proofs are made is integers/rational numbers (and e.g. Diophantine equations), but in which any method whatsoever can be used to write proofs of the theorems of interest, meaning that modern number theory draws on more or less every branch of pure mathematics. The scope is incredibly broad.

Arithmetic by contrast (at least, as I would use the term) refers to the explicit calculation of concrete numerical operations, and the employment of those calculations to solve concrete problems. Once someone is making general proofs, they start to stray away from arithmetic per se. –jacobolus (t) 18:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I would not consider the logical formalization of arithmetic to be part of arithmetic itself. –jacobolus (t) 18:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. It is a very good summary of what I was trying to explain with examples. D.Lazard (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@D.Lazard 192.145.175.198 (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started a draft of the section "Integer arithmetic" at User:Phlsph7/Integer_arithmetic to implement some of the talk-page suggestions here. I haven't done any copyediting and I haven't added any references. The section requires at least one more image to visualize how long multiplication works. I was hoping to get some feedback on the selected topics and their explanation before I get the other aspects of this draft in order. There are many more algorithms that could be described step by step but my impression was that this is better left to the corresponding child articles. Also, feel free to edit the draft directly if you have improvement ideas. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram you have there is an explanation but doesn't reflect any actual practice. I wonder if anyone has the time/ability to make some animated examples. It would be neat to compare e.g. multi-digit addition or subtraction using (a) the kind of counting board common in medieval Europe, (b) a soroban, (c) Hindu-Arabic numerals on a dust board using erasure as a fundamental technique, (d) some variant of the pen-and-paper algorithm usually taught in schools today. –jacobolus (t) 17:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think even a summary section on (positional decimal) integer arithmetic can be extended quite a bit. I'd maybe make sub-sections for: (1) counting, (2) addition and subtraction within 20, (3) a number line concept, (4) multi-digit addition/subtraction with a general concept of borrowing/carrying, (5) addition/subtraction with negative numbers, (6) skip counting, (7) single-digit multiplication and a multiplication table, (8) multi-digit multiplication methods including "peasant multiplication", lattice multiplication, long multiplication, (9) division by repeated subtraction, (10) long division with remainder (11) the Euclidean algorithm, greatest common divisors, and continued fractions. There are probably other worthwhile subsections I'm leaving out here. I'd defer discussion of asymptotically faster multiplication algorithms implemented in computer systems to a later part of the article. –jacobolus (t) 18:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and the many suggestions. I made new diagrams to more accurately present addition with carry and long multiplication. You presented many interesting expansion ideas for this section. I mentioned some of them. My goal now is to first get the essentials of the new sections down, like rational arithmetic and real arithmetic. I will also have to adjust the pre-existing sections accordingly. I hope to revisit the expansion ideas once the main ideas are implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your great work. I did not paricipate further to the above discussion because of other occupations, and also because I had the feeling that my few a priori concerns were well understood. I just read the new version (without comparing with the older one), and I find it excellent; this is a rare case where everything is better written than what I could do myself. Congratulation again. D.Lazard (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to review the new version and for all your initial help in ensuring that this project set off in the right direction! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Let's start a collection of relevant sources here. Feel free to modify the below list. –jacobolus (t) 20:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listing the sources. Several of the ones listed so far should be useful for the parts that deal with education and psychology. It will take me a while to familiarize myself with them. My idea was to get started with the sections on integer arithmetic, rational arithmetic, and real arithmetic. Do you know of any sources that provide a good overview of one or several of these topics? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These "education" sources deal extensively with these topics. –jacobolus (t) 08:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History:

• Berggren, J.L. (2016), "Arithmetic in the Islamic World" in Episodes in the Mathematics of Medieval Islam, Springer, doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3780-6_2
• Saidan, Ahmad S. (1996) "Numeration and arithmetic" in Roshdi Rashed (ed.) Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science, vol. 2, Routledge.
• Saidan, Ahmad S. (1978) The Arithmetic of Al-Uqlīdisī: The Story of Hindu-Arabic Arithmetic as told in Kitāb al-Fuṣūl fī al-Ḥisāb al-Hindī, Reidel.
• Herreman, Alain (2001), "La mise en texte mathématique: Une analyse de l’«Algorisme de Frankenthal»", Methodos 1, doi:10.4000/methodos.45

Education:

• "Number and Arithmetic" in the International Handbook of Mathematics Education, doi:10.1007/978-94-009-1465-0_4.
• Jeremy Kilpatrick, Jane Swafford, and Bradford Findell, Eds. (2001), Adding it Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics, National Academies Press, doi:10.17226/9822.
• Hart, K. M., ed. (1981) Children's Understanding of Mathematics: 11–16, John Murray. https://archive.org/details/childrensunderst0000unse_p8x0
• Williams, J. D. (1965). "Understanding and Arithmetic – II: Some Remarks on the Nature of Understanding". Educational Research, 7(1), 15–36. doi:10.1080/0013188640070102
• Ma, Liping (2020) [1999], Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers' understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States (3rd edition), Routledge.
• M. G. Bartolini Bussi, & X. Sun (Eds.) (2018), Building the foundation: Whole numbers in the primary grades, Springer
  • Ma, L., & Kessel, C. (2018), "The theory of school arithmetic: Whole numbers", in Bartolini Bussi & Sun (2018), pp. 437–462, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63555-2_18
• Ma, Liping, and Cathy Kessel (2022), "The theory of school arithmetic: Fractions", Asian Journal for Mathematics Education 1(3): 265–284 doi:10.1177/27527263221107162
• David Eugene Smith (1909), The Teaching of Arithmetic, Ginn, https://archive.org/details/teachingofarith00smit/
• Howe, Roger, and Susanna Epp (2008), "Taking place value seriously: Arithmetic, estimation and algebra", Resources for PMET (Preparing Mathematicians to Educate Teachers), MAA online, https://maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/pmet/resources/PVHoweEpp-Nov2008.pdf

Cognitive science:

• Brian Butterworth (1999) The Mathematical Brain, Macmillan. https://archive.org/details/mathematicalbrai0000butt/
• Lakoff & Núñez (2000), Part I: "The Embodiment of Basic Arithmetic" in Where Mathematics Comes From, Basic Books. https://archive.org/details/wheremathematics00lako/
• Steffe, Leslie P., and Paul Cobb (2012), Construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies, Springer.
• Roi Cohen Kadosh Ann Dowker (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Numerical Cognition, Oxford.

Word problems:

• Wim Van Dooren, Lieven Verschaffel and Patrick Onghena (2002) "The Impact of Preservice Teachers' Content Knowledge on Their Evaluation of Students' Strategies for Solving Arithmetic and Algebra Word Problems", Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 33, No. 5, pp. 319-351
• Andrei Toom (2005) "Word Problems in Russia and America", https://web.archive.org/web/20190428212118/http://www.de.ufpe.br/~toom/travel/sweden05/WP-SWEDEN-NEW.pdf

Algebra vs. arithmetic:

• Herscovics, Nicolas, and Liora Linchevski. "A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra." Educational studies in mathematics 27, no. 1 (1994): 59-78. doi:10.1007/BF01284528
• Carraher, David W., Analúcia D. Schliemann, Bárbara M. Brizuela, and Darrell Earnest. "Arithmetic and algebra in early mathematics education." Journal for Research in Mathematics education 37, no. 2 (2006): 87-115. doi:10.2307/30034843
• Filloy, Eugenio, and Teresa Rojano. "Solving equations: The transition from arithmetic to algebra." For the learning of mathematics 9, no. 2 (1989): 19-25. https://flm-journal.org/?showMenu=9,2

Computer algorithms:

• Donald Knuth (1997) [1969], Ch. 4 "Arithmetic" in The Art of Computer Programming, Vol 2. (3rd edition)

"Arithmetization"

• Felix Klein (1896) "The Arithmetizing of Mathematics", Bulletin of the AMS, https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1896-02-08/S0002-9904-1896-00340-2/

I'd recommend against using this {{multiref2}} template for lists of short "harvnb" references. It puts an unreasonably large amount of space between lines and ends up taking up like 2.5x more space overall than just putting the short references on the same line separated by semicolons, or similar. –jacobolus (t) 21:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I replaced it to avoid the extra space between citations. I hope the reference section is tidier this way. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better. The one with more space would work better between longer notes or full citations. –jacobolus (t) 19:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. History6042 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC) NOTE: Per this thread at WT:GAN, this review is invalid as it did not contain source spotchecks and was performed because of a reward board misunderstanding. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arithmetic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: History6042 (talk · contribs) 15:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I will be reviewing this article.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There are hundreds of organized references.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There's an inline citation for nearly every sentence, and when that is not true, there is one for every paragraph.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It addresses addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and exponentiation.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There is no edit war.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Every image has a caption.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I still am not entirely sold on all of the high-level organization here. The subsections about 'Numeral systems' and 'Kinds' of numbers seem fundamentally unalike and don't really fit in the same top-level section in my opinion. The numeral systems section is also kind of a mess in my opinion; tally marks are not really a "numeral system" except as a kind of anachronistic modern imposition, and non-positional vs. positional numeral systems are fundamentally different (in particular, non-positional systems such as Roman numerals were not ever used with written "arithmetic" methods, but were more like a written input/output for calculations done with fingers, tokens, or some kind of counting board; the computer-programming analogy I sometimes use is that these are more like a serialization format than a calculation tool). Likewise, the binary system is also not like Hindu–Arabic numbers, in the sense that neither humans nor computers commonly write "1101" or whatever and do arithmetic with those written symbols; instead humans write numbers in decimal or hexadecimal, and computers store/transmit bits of data and operate using logic gates rather than writing. So lumping these all together the way is currently done is in my opinion sort of misleading.

I wonder if it would work better to leave 'Numbers' as a top-level section and eliminate 'Kinds' as a heading, and then split information about numerals into multiple subsections of a new top-level section. My proposal would be to make some kind of top-level section about "Methods" or "Tools" or "Approaches" or similar (not sure the best name), which could include 2nd-level subsections on e.g. finger counting, tally marks / counting by tokens, positional counting boards / counting rods / bead abacuses, positional written arithmetic, mechanical calculators, electronic calculators (mentioning binary), mental arithmetic. @Phlsph7 what do you think? I don't want to stomp too much on your hard work. –jacobolus (t) 18:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobolus: Thanks for sharing your improvement ideas. I think your suggestion of presenting different forms of arithmetic tools/methods in a common place could work. I'm not sure that this topic is important enough to have a top-level section. Some of these tools/methods are mentioned in the sources but they are usually not discussed in great detail. I'll have a look to see if I can come up with something.

Numeral systems are discussed in various overview sources on arithmetic, like Romanowski 2008, EoM staff 2020a, Nagel 2002, and Lockhart 2017. I think it makes sense to discuss them somewhere. Since they represent numbers, I thought having them as a subsection of the section "Numbers" is the most obvious choice. Tally marks are used as an example of a unary numeral system following Mazumder & Ebong 2023. As an example, it is not essential. It was intended to help the reader by making the discussion more concrete. We could replace it with another example of a unary numeral system. Various overview sources of arithmetic discuss the binary system, like Lockhart 2017 and Nagel 2002.

There are different ways to organize the material into a section structure. They all have their advantages and disadvantages and there is probably not one single "right" way. It's usually easier to make several smaller changes within the current structure than to make a more radical reorganization, which often requires rewriting various parts, ensuring that they properly represent the sources, and taking care not to introduce new errors in the process. Unless there is a weighty reason otherwise, I would suggest that we first try to implement several smaller changes to address specific problems one at a time. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you separated mental arithmetic to form a distinct subsection. I followed your lead and made a first attempt to implement your idea by expanding this subsection to cover tool use in general. It's probably not exactly what you had in mind but it goes in the same direction. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a title like "systems and tools" would work better. As I said, I'd put this immediately after the section about "numbers" and merge the "numeral systems" section into there, split into multiple subsections; the part about "unary" can go into a subsection about counting including tally marks, piles of tokens, etc., the part about "binary" is best contextualized in a later section about electronic calculators, and the parts about positional vs. non-positional number systems should be separated as they are fundamentally different in their purpose and uses.

As another example, the slide rule was arguably the most important method of computation throughout the 18th–20th centuries, and is currently not mentioned on this page; more generally there were other analog "instruments" used for calculation such as the sector and various scales used together with a pair of dividers, which were essential calculation methods of the 16th–19th century. If you go earlier than that, most serious calculation throughout history was done with some kind of counting board, which is currently unmentioned on this page; counting rods are also unmentioned, and the discussion about bead-frame abacuses is sort of misleading and limited.

A tool used for more precise calculations, also essential throughout math, science, and engineering for centuries, was printed tables of trigonometric functions and logarithms, also not mentioned here. While on the subject of tables, tables for things like reciprocals, squares, etc. were an important calculation aid in ancient Mesopotamia.

I had in earlier conversations a few months ago conceived of the scope of this article as potentially being mostly about positional decimal pen-and-paper arithmetic, with other topics sent to other pages like calculation, computation, history of computing, mechanical calculator, abacus, etc., but the scope you settled on here is very broad; in that case we should actually try to cover that full scope (at least in a compressed summary; we don't need to be excessively detailed about any particular part). –jacobolus (t) 19:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all good expansion ideas, I tried to fit the main ones into the current setup. I'm still hesitant to go for a full-scale implementation of your ideas since the sources that I'm aware of give more importance to numeral systems than to calculation instruments. I'm not in principle against the suggestions but I fear that they could conflict with WP:PROPORTION. Maybe the root of the disagreement is that our outlooks are based on different sources that present the relative importance of those topics differently. I'll respond to your comments below later. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I mean is, I think "numeral system" as an overarching concept is actually somewhat off topic, in the sense that you can't really do "arithmetic" in a meaningful sense with a "unary numeral system" per se, and the concept of "unary numeral system" is an anachronistic modern imposition on a range of past practices which were much more flexible and creative, and frankly not really a "number system" at all. What's really important about it is the direct representation of natural numbers by an equivalent count of marks or tokens (e.g. pebbles or shells). No historical culture that we know about ever limited itself to only representing numbers as tally marks, which are a record-keeping tool more than a calculation tool.

I don't think your summary here accurately reflects the sources you mentioned.

• Lockhart's book doesn't talk about number systems in at all the way this article does: he tells a kind of (partly imagined) story about the different ways of representing numbers and their relationships, but doesn't try to strictly categorize or label them.
• The Encyclopedia of Mathematics article (aside: you should credit this to the authors A. A. Bukhshtab and V. I. Pechaev not to "EoM staff"; their article is unchanged from their original) does not mention "unary numerals" or "numeral systems" at all.
• Neither Nagel nor Romanowski discusses these topics either (and in my opinion both are poorly written and poorly organized mishmashes aimed I assume at an audience of children or non-English-speakers which should be avoided as sources for Wikipedia).
• Mazumder & Ebong is a weird source. It's a book ostensibly about circuit design, and the section about miscellaneous number representations doesn't really connect to the rest. It reads to me like they had a page count they were aiming for and were just padding it out with fluff. YMMV. I'd recommend avoiding this as a source about "arithmetic" per se (it might be a good source about the concrete circuits needed to implement hardware for binary-coded decimal arithmetic; I didn't read those parts carefully).

–jacobolus (t) 17:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Lockhart have several chapters dedicated to the problem of the representation of numbers? For example, the chapter "Language" talks using rocks, sticks, or fingers, to scratches on bones, to verbal utterances (i.e., words), to abstract symbols to represent numbers while stating that the story of arithmetic ... in a large part ... is a history of representation. The chapter "Repetition" contains a detailed discussion of tally marks and how they lead to more complex representational systems, which is continued in the following chapters. The chapter "Egypt" discusses the Hieroglyphic numerals and the chapter "Rome" discusses the Roman numeral system, similar to our section. The binary system is also explicitly discussed in a later chapter. When I have the time, I'll take a more detailed look at the other sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Lockhart's whole book is more or less about the representation of numbers (what Lockhart means by arithmetic is "the art of counting and arranging things").

But my point is that his book is not really any clear precedent for the way this article was presenting the subject, as I took your implication to be in your previous comment. It's a fine book, but in my opinion its scope or organization shouldn't be adopted as the basis for an encyclopedia article: it's a meandering personal essay written in literary style, rather than an organized encyclopedic overview trying to summarize scholarly consensus. –jacobolus (t) 16:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, my intention was not to argue that we should reorganize our article to match Lockhart's approach but that the emphasis he gives to numeral systems throughout his book underlines that this topic is important enough to merit its own subsection.

In regard to EoM staff 2020a: they discuss the hieroglyphic, Babylonian, Greek, and Indian-Arabic numeral systems and consider the advantages and disadvantages of the different systems. I was also thinking about mentioning the original authors (A. A. Bukhshtab and V. I. Pechaev) but I'm not sure to what extent the article was modified and whether other authors would need to be mentioned as well (see, for example, their revision history). At the bottom of the page, they suggest citing the entry without an author and state that it is an adapted version of the original one. I'm not sure if there is a good way to cite sources using the sfn format without any author at all, so I used "EoM staff" as a compromise. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the EoM articles I've ever looked at was nontrivially modified away from the original (you can see the page history by clicking somewhere down at the bottom IIRC); the changes are stuff like fixing OCR typos and changing the rendering method for mathematical formulas. I would cite the original authors, and not bother figuring out who made minor typo fixes.

If you want another good "encyclopedia" source about fairly basic topics (though it's not organized into named articles in quite the same way as a traditional general encyclopedia), the VNR concise encyclopedia of mathematics (2nd ed 1989; originally published in 1965 in German) seems excellent. –jacobolus (t) 17:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least for the articles we use, there does not seem to be any significant difference so I followed your suggestions to use the original authors instead of "EoM staff". I had a look at the VNR concise encyclopedia of mathematics. Its first few entries would have been quite useful for sourcing this article. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another good (albeit relatively old) source: Halsted, On the Foundation and Technic of Arithmetic. –jacobolus (t) 21:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arithmetic/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dedhert.Jr (talk · contribs) 07:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if I'm able to review this article in which the content is surprisingly written, cited in bunch of sources. In other words, I could possibly ask for a second opinion here. Will try my best. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dedhert.Jr and thanks for doing this review. I'll try to help with any questions as best as I can, and asking for second opinion can be a good way to address uncertainties. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. At least this will take a long time to review and write the comments as well. Please give more times. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a big topic so please take the time you need. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments:

Before I began to write the list of comments, I was confused about why the sections "kinds of numbers" and "types of arithmetic" have the similarity content? They explain the definition, properties, and examples of kinds of numbers. The difference, however, is that the latter section explains how are these numbers calculated. Any reason not to merge them into one section? Also, the ordinal numbers and cardinal numbers are supposed to be suitable in other various fields? Also, again, I have never heard the terms such as "integer arithmetic", "rational arithmetic", and others; are these terms officially used? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are different ways to arrange the topics into sections and they all have different advantages and disadvantages. The idea behind the current approach is the following: the subsection "Kinds" discusses the different types of numbers while the first subsections of "Types of arithmetic" discuss specific techniques or algorithms of how to perform calculations with them. For example, the subsection "Integer arithmetic" starts by explaining how to perform operations on one-digit integers and then discusses algorithms for how operations on integers with several digits can be calculated using a series of one-digit operations. The subsection "Kinds" only defines and compares different types of numbers without introducing any algorithms for how calculations on them can be performed. This approach is also found in reliable sources like Khattar 2010. Since other sections, like "Axiomatic foundations" and "History", also rely on the distinction between the different kinds of numbers, I thought it best to have them in their own subsection.

In regard to ordinal numbers and cardinal numbers, I assume you mean that they are primarily relevant to natural and whole numbers. I moved that paragraph up and slightly adjusted the text. Please let me know if you had a different idea in mind.

I've added sources for the terms of the different types of arithmetic. The term "rational arithmetic" is also sometimes used but "rational number arithmetic" seems to be more common and is also clearer since it avoids the danger of misreading the "rational" in the sense of being based on reason. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that the combined section I referred to can have its advantages. With this section, it is described the system of numbers, and how they perform their calculation: if the operation does have restriction, meaning that the results after some operations are not in the same kind of numbers, the latter paragraph or section could be the next hierarchy numbers with a different definition. What I am trying to say, is if natural numbers and integers could be defined in the operation of addition and multiplication, but division is not, then the latter paragraph contains the definition of rational numbers along with the examples and how they perform their calculation. This could be repeated up to irrational, real, and complex numbers.

Re: the ordinal numbers and cardinal numbers. I thought you would put them in the education in the last section "In various fields", because both of these numbers are related to linguistics, but yeah, I do not have a particular reason for not recommending you to move them out. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, yeah. I would expect again that the combined section would give the consequence of refactoring the other section, which is putting the operations first, followed by the kinds of numbers, although this necessarily makes up less WP:TECHNICAL, more specifically WP:ONEDOWN, meaning that this topic could be targeted by all readers, especially for graders in elementary school who wants to study even more. However, I would consider that there are other options despite of being repeatedly explaining the same topic in different sections. By the way, I have seen the discussion between you and @Jacobolus on the talk page, so I think I could hear an opinion on the case of targeting the audience. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how exactly you envision your suggestions but, from what I can tell, they seem to involve several fundamental changes that include removing some sections, refactoring them into others, introducing the different sections and their relations in new ways, and changing the order of the remaining sections.

Your main reason for this proposal seems to be that, according to you, the current version is too technical (GA criterion 1a) and has problems with redundancies (GA criterion 3b?). My suggestion would be to first try to tackle these potential problems with smaller adjustments, and see if that works. For example, which passages in the current version do you think are too difficult to understand? I'm all for presenting the ideas in a simple way but I don't think that elementary school students are the key audience of Wikipedia articles. If they are our key audience then, I agree, the article fails. We could approach the issue of redundancy the same way. For example, which passages in the subsection "Integer arithmetic" merely repeat claims from the subsection "Kinds"? I had a look now but I did not spot any, but maybe you are seeing something that I don't. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the current version is fine and it's not very technical at all. The main reason I provide my opinion on that is I was trying to find a way of how to remove the redundancies of repeated topics over and over again in different topics. After I read carefully again, it seems that everything is fine. My apologies for misunderstanding and missing the spot, which I have to retract my comment. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to consider different perspectives to probe the current version. There is no one correct way to organize the topics and it's quite possible that your way of dividing them into sections would work fine as well. The danger when implementing big changes to address smaller issues is that various new issues may arise that one did not anticipate before. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

Following comments:

• Definition, etymology, and related fields: The first paragraph explains the definition of arithmetic and the origin of its name. In the first sentence, Merriam-Webster cites the meaning of arithmetic and the operations, but I'm surprised there is the phrase "staffs" by the author. It seems that I cannot access the "Romanowski"-named source, seeming to solely redirect to the encyclopedia.com site without explicitly saying the pages here. Ditto for the citation in the second paragraph, the second sentence, and possibly in other citations including some of them. I do think both sentences have the same citation, so why are they numbered differently in the citation list? Note that I'm skeptical about the EoM source and whether is reliable or not, although it is supported by Springer and EMS. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem in relation to the "staffs" is that the sfn citation format needs an author but the citation suggestion at [3] does not include an author. I've followed the "staffs"-approach so far in other articles without problems so far, including FA articles like Philosophy. One alternative I could think of would be to use the publisher in the author field. Do you think we should use that instead?

  The very first article at [4] is Romanowski 2008. It's a digitalized version that lacks page numbers but I thought it might be better to have this one than nothing. The article starts on page 302 and page 303 ends with "Like addition, the operation of multiplication has three axioms related to it. There is the commutative law of multiplication stated by the equation a× b=b× a."

  This and the following reference to Romanowski 2008 are numbered differently because they are bundled together with other references using the template "multiref". They only get the same number if all references in a bundle are identical.

  I think EoM qualifies as a reliable source. If you feel that it is used somewhere to support a controversial claim without any other sources to back it up then please let me know and I'll check what other sources say. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Definition, etymology, and related fields: Some definitions restrict arithmetic to the field of numerical calculations. I wonder what is the field of numerical calculations you referring to? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What I was trying to express in this and the following sentence is that there are different definitions of arithmetic that vary in scope. Numerical calculations would be how to add numbers, multiply numbers, etc. For example, various parts of number theory would be excluded from that definition while other definitions see number theory as a part of arithmetic. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Definition, etymology, and related fields: The last paragraph contains the relation of arithmetic in many branches of mathematics. Musser, Peterson & Burger (2013) describe the role of manipulating equations in algebra, and Monahan (2012) describes its usage in analyzing data; both of these are described in the paragraph. But the rest do not contain the area under curves and rates of change, rather they focus on the continuity function and historical relation of arithmetic, geometry, and calculus only. Did I miss something here? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If I understand the point correctly, the problem is that that the clause about "rates of change and areas under curves" is not supported by the sources. I think the main source for calculus is Kleiner 2012 but you are right that it does not explicitly mention "area under curves and rates of change". I added this clause to clarify to the reader what calculus is. I could add a source for the claim that calculus determines rates of change and areas under curves. If you feel that the expression "in its attempt" is too strong, it could be replaced with "which attempts to" to not imply too much in regard to the role of arithmetic. Or do you have other ideas? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not actually a native speaker of English here. When I read the phrase "in its attempt", my mind thought that those principles have more impact, and more application, on calculating the area under curves and rates of changes, rather than using concepts in calculus such as Riemann integral, definite integral, and whatever those concepts. But meh, I don't mind; hopefully, there are better vocabularies in this case. By the way, the "these principles" before the last sentence should be the principles of arithmetic concepts, correct? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I kept the expression intentionally vague in order not to focus on just one single aspect of arithmetic. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Numbers/Kinds: I see that some of the mathematical formats here use TeX, while others use HTML. Can we simply be consistent with one of these formats? Also, is it important to denote the set of whole numbers? They can be denoted as ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} _{0}}$ or others variously such as ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} ^{0}}$, or by using the notation of set theory: ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} *\cup \{0\}}$ (see the article Natural number#Notation). One of the citations, Khhatar (2001), uses ${\displaystyle W}$ as the set of whole numbers. By the way, here's the link for Hindry (2011): [5] and https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4471-2131-2, just in case. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I formated them all to TeX, I hope I didn't miss any. I added footnotes for the alternative symbols. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Phlsph7 Okay. But should you cite the notation for natural numbers? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This seems to be a minor point but I managed to come up with a few sources. They don't cover ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} ^{*}}$ so we would have to do more searching or remove that one if you feel strongly about this. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Never mind, I found a source for ${\displaystyle \mathbb {N} ^{*}}$. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Numbers/Kinds: Maybe you could summarize the meaning of "repeating decimal" briefly in the rational number paragraph, or give an example of it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Numbers/Kinds: A somewhat cringeworthy idea from me. I wonder if you can modify a little bit about the irrational numbers here. What I meant here is should you explain in more detail how are these numbers obtained? Maybe the first sentence explains the definition of irrational numbers, and what are those properties, followed by the example of numbers and how are they obtained; for example, The ${\displaystyle \left(1,1,{\sqrt {2}}\right)}$ right triangle in the illustration is an example of how the number ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {2}}}$ is obtained. The same thing for the ${\displaystyle \pi }$ and ${\displaystyle e}$. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good idea, I added the corresponding explanation. I removed ${\displaystyle e}$ since the explanation is not that straightforward and two examples should be enough. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm... okay. But something's off. The mathematical constant ${\displaystyle \pi }$ should be sufficiently be defined as ${\displaystyle C/d}$ the ratio of circumference's circle ${\displaystyle C}$ and diameter ${\displaystyle d}$, and the size of ${\displaystyle d}$ is not neccessarily matter. This is already explained in our FA, Pi; see more specifically in the definition. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried to simplify it but you are correct that this is not the most general definition so I used your suggestion instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comments related to the previous section. I'm puzzled by the name of the previous section; any reason why is the section is not supposed to be renamed as "System of numbers"? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that systems of numbers is generally accepted as a technical term for these differences. There is the danger of mistaking systems of numbers for number systems, which is one label for the difference between numeral systems like binary numerals, decimal numberals, etc. I was also considering the label Types instead of Kinds but I decided against it to avoid mistaking it for Type (model theory). I'm not sure how serious that concern is, though. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Number/Numeral system: Maybe template the main article Numeral system? "A numeral is a symbol representing a number", yes, but the "numeral systems are representational frameworks" phrase somewhat gives the implicit definition. Is it possible to explain more about what the "frameworks" mean in this context? Here is the Ore (1984) URL [6]. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I added the template. The explanation is given in the following sentences: a framework comprises a set of symbols together with rules for combining them. I'm not sure if there is a better way to explain it but I hope the general characterization becomes clear to the reader through the concrete examples of the different systems in the next paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Arithmetic operations: Missing wikilink inverse elements? Also, the second paragraph mentions the identity and inverse element in addition, but not the multiplication. Is it possible to add them as well? The same reason for the third paragraph. In the case of images, why does each image have the wikilink if you already provide the main-article templates? Also, are these images helpful in understanding all of these operations aside from the numbers and symbols as well? From my perspective, I do think it will really helpful if the images can be drawn with some objects along with the numbers showing the amount of objects while operating another one; for example, three apples and two apples, added them becomes five apples, and the numbers are written under the objects with the operation symbols. I do think these can be helpful in some basic operations, such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding identity/inverse elements: my idea was to only give one example in the introduction to help the reader grasp the general concepts. All the elements for the different operations are given in the following subsections. This way, we avoid repetition.

  I think the main point of the images is to introduce the reader to the technical vocabulary (addend, subtrahend, exponent) visually without needing to describe what number is meant. I like the idea of showing the amount of objects visually along with the numbers. I'm not sure how to handle the problem of limited space: most of the right side of the screen is filled with images in this section. If more are added (or the images become bigger) then they start pushing each other down, which might lead to the multiplication image being displayed next to the exponentiation text. How they are displayed depends on the reader device, like screen size. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What I meant is replacing those images with the proposed one, instead of adding more images. Ah, I should have said it more specifically. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried a different solution by adding images to the introductory text before the subsections. This way, we can keep the images below as they are, which I think is helpful for the terminology, and have images representing how arithmetic operations are applied to sets of objects. Does that work for you? Phlsph7 (talk) 10:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed the image links. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Arithmetic operations/Addition and subtraction: Burgin (2022) defines the summation, but not the counting. As well as the source problem, this section may need another image on which it shows the computation of addition and subtraction with the arrow bouncing on each number in real line, for defining the addition and subtraction visually, right? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I added a source for counting. I added an image of the number line method to the section "Integer arithmetic" instead because of the limited space in the section "Addition and subtraction". Phlsph7 (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Arithmetic operations/Multiplication and division: The note in the early paragraph, in the early sentence has somewhat terrible sources. There are no pages of the source Cavanagh (2017) included here, and for the Weisstein, the MathWorld, I do remember that they are not reliable sources, so maybe you could find a better one? Also, should you link Product (mathematics)? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I added a page number for Cavanagh 2017. It is published by CRC Press, which belongs to Taylor & Francis and should be reliable. From what I gather, Eric W. Weisstein is a respected and well-published author in the field. Are you aware of any past discussion about Wolfram Mathworld? It is not listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as an unreliable source. To me, the claim for which these sources are used does not sound particularly controversial. I added the wikilink to Product (mathematics). Phlsph7 (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have asked in WT:WPM, and there are some discussion about Mathworld whether it is dubious, reliable, or whatever it is. Someone is already replaced the source; see the talk. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the link, I was not aware of the discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Arithmetic operations/Exponentiation and logarithm: Should you also explain what if the exponent is 0 for any base, except for 0, and what about if the both base and exponent are also 0? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good idea. I added it in a footnote to not put too much emphasis on this detail. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Types of arithmetic/Integer arithmetic: the "multiplication and repeated addition" contains the debate about whether educators should teach those operations in education; is it actually helpful to readers to understand? I mean, what's the point of adding that link, and does this link relate to the topic? I would expect that the article may be linked in the section in which the operation, multiplication, is defined as the repeated addition. Also, in the same section again, there are HTML and {{math}} being used in a mixed manner. But we already have TeX in the previous section; again, can you consistently use one of them? Also, again, the reference Prata (2002) does not mention the inaccuracies when rounding them. Methods to calculate logarithms include the Taylor series and continued fractions: Did you mean the logarithm in general, right? But the sources show the expression of sum and integrals in a natural logarithm, an ${\displaystyle e}$-base logarithm. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed the link, the name of that article is a little misleading. I defaulted to tex, it's probably best to use that everywhere. The inaccuracy of rounding is implicit in Prata 2002 but I added an additional source to make this more explicit. Regarding logarithms, I added an additional source that does not explicitly mention this restriction. I'm not sure that this is necessary since it's possible to use the natural logarithm to calculate the logarithm for another base as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Types of arithmetic/Number theory: The Yan (2013) reference gives the wrong page containing the definition of the set of systems of numbers. I don't think that analysis and calculus may need to be included in defining the elementary number theory. Also, maybe you can explain briefly what are the other fields of arithmetic in the last sentence, especially in the applied one. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems I relied on two different versions of Yan's book, which is why the page numbers didn't match. I defaulted to the 2002 version, which has the list of subfields of number theory on page 12. I removed the mention of analysis and calculus and expanded the explanation of the additional subfields. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Axiomatic foundations: As far as I know, the axioms start with 1, which is a natural number, but I am surprised that 0 is included in these primitive axioms. Mind-blowing!. Speaking of citations, I do think that Taylor 2012 should put in the footnote nearby, and replace it with other sources: [7]; the URL page Ongley & Carey 2013 have a slight problem. Axiomatic foundations of arithmetic try to provide a small set of laws, so-called axioms Should the phrase "so-called" be avoided under WP:WTW? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This part about the axioms was also confusing to me. It would have been helpful if the different versions had different names. I moved Taylor 2012, added the source suggested by you, and fixed Ongley & Carey 2013. I rephrased the so-called to be on the safe side. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The same reason for the "real arithmetic" about the phrase "so-called". Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop here for a moment, and for some reason, I will respond to your reply, if it's sufficiently required. More comments are possibly coming in the next few days. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: Thanks for the detailed comments. I tried to respond to them and I hope I didn't miss any. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

• History: Umm... do you have to keep the main article History of arithmetic despite that it is not sufficient enough to describe the history of arithmetic entirely, and I'm pretty sure this section is solely a summary? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what you mean. Are talking about the template that links to the article or the article itself? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article History of arithmetic I refer to, which do not entirely explain the history of arithmetic. Rather, it remains incomplete to translate the content from the FA Russian article ru:История арифметики. To put it plain, this article is seemingly short and does not helpful the audience. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I get your idea, thanks for pointing this out. I turned the article into a redirect and explained the main reasons at Talk:History_of_arithmetic#Changed_to_redirect. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• History: "Some historians suggest that the Lebombo bone (dated about 43,000 years ago) and the Ishango bone (dated about 22,000 to 30,000 years ago) are the oldest arithmetic artifacts but this interpretation is disputed" — Two sources I could access Burgin 2022 and Thiam & Rochon 2019 described the range of Lebombo bone around 44,000 and 43,000 years ago; should this be included entirely? Also, should you explain what makes those interpretations become disputed? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article Lebombo bone says between 43,000 and 42,000. Our section says "dated about 43,000 years ago", which implies that it's not a precise date. As far as I'm aware, the dispute is mainly because its rather difficult to say now for what purpose it was used back then and historians can only speculate. To keep the section concise, it might be better to leave it as it is. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• History: Neither of the facts in both sources Burgin 2022 and Ang & Lam 2004 about the early arithmetic evolved in 3000 BCE. Did you mean 4,000 BCE, or did I miss something? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Burgin says "first authentic data on arithmetic knowledge...third to second millennia BCE" and mentions arithmetic in India in the third millennia BCE. The text also talks about token use by the Sumerians 4000 BCE but as it is discussed there, I don't think it qualifies as "complex and structured approach to arithmetic". Our formulation is relatively vague so I don't think we are committing to too much here. But if you are concerned, we could leave the number 3000 BCE out since Burgin talks explicitly about arithmetic in ancient civilizations. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh. I see. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• History (third paragraph): Brown 2010 does not explicitly about the utilization of arithmetic in the era of ancient Greece. Should you write examples about the early civilizations that primarily used numbers for concrete practical purposes and lacked an abstract concept of numbers? Burgin 2022, pp. 20–21 and Bloch 2011, p. 52 describe the irrational numbers in geometrical features; except for the Burgin 2022, p. 34. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I assume you mean our sentence "This changed with the ancient Greek mathematicians, who began to explore the abstract nature of numbers rather than studying how they are applied to specific problems". Brown 2010 talks about the notion of number as pure magnitude ... first elaborated by Euclid. I added an example about the earlier practical applications. I removed page 34 from the citation of Burgin 2022. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• History (fifth paragraph): "empty/missing positions" avoid the slash here; such a symbol has ambiguous meaning. Lützen 2023 does not explicitly say anything about the usage by Cardano in complex numbers, rather it shows only the impossibility of imaginary numbers in the solution of a quadratic equation. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed the slash. You are right, Lützen 2023 is only used to support the first part of the sentence. The second part about cubic equations is supported by Burgin 2022. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• History (last paragraph): Weil 2009 does verify the fact of the number theory foundation, but Karlsson 2011 rather mentions their theorem in some chapters and other mathematicians were working on zeta function. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed Karlsson 2011 since it only supports the claim indirectly and the other sources do a better job. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dedhert.Jr: I wanted to enquire whether the changes so far meet your expectations and whether there are more points that should be addressed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 Ah, sorry. I haven't finish the review yet. Please spare me more time to complete the review, despite the article had some changes by another user, which I have to take a step on the second reading. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second reading

Okay. I'm ready to read for the second time. I postponed because I had to wait for the article to stabilize after some previous edits suddenly appeared during reviewing (GACR5). I haven't reviewed the section "In various fields", so it might take more time to review them, as well as review the whole article again.

• For the section definition, etymology, and related fields, I wonder if you could remove the paragraph about the related fields, as you already wrote them in the "In various fields" section. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you even have to link the article 18 (number) and 19 (number) in the section Number theory? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I linked them because their properties are discussed, such as factorization and being a prime number. I don't think it's important and I don't feel strongly about this either way. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It is usually introduced in relation to concrete scenarios, like counting beads, dividing the class into groups of children of the same size, and calculating change when buying items. Common tools in early arithmetic education are number lines, addition and multiplication tables, and counting blocks I wonder if you could also add that the students may also count numbers with an abacus. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• They introduce the students to different types of numbers Maybe you should explain more specifically the phrase "they" in this case, the second paragraph of the first sentence in the education section. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I reformulated this sentence by linking it to the previous sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not good in philosophy mathematics, but is the article Quine–Putnam indispensability argument may be related to and somehow fit into the article? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's most relevant to Platonism in the philosophy of mathematics. I added a short footnote. Discussing it in detail may go beyond the scope. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I think it's all done. I hopefully do not miss anything after closing this review. Passing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jacobolus and thanks for adding the detailed and accessible discussion of how to deal with measurement uncertainty. Is the term "Approximate arithmetic" a technical term found in the reliable sources for this form of arithmetic? I didn't find it in your first source (Drosg 2007, pp. 1–5) and a short google search did not turn up much either except for electronic components known as approximate arithmetic circuits. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Approximate arithmetic" is just a descriptive phrase, not an existing jargon term. The section heading could certainly change. –jacobolus (t) 15:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I do not know any better title for the present content of this section. However, this section deals with two very different problems, the approximations and errors in measurement, and the approximations resulting from the representation of numbers in a computer, mainly through floating-point arithmetic. IMO, this deserves to be split into two different sections, which could be called respectively "Approximations and errors" and "Computer arithmetic".

Computer arithmetic is a well established area that belongs to both computer science and mathematics, has an annual international conference (ARITH) and two standards (IEEE 754 and GNU GMP). So, it deserves to have a specific article. Unfortunately, Computer arithmetic is a redirect that was targetted to Arithmetic logic unit; I changed the target to Floating-point arithmetic, but it would much better to have an article that covers all aspects of this subject. Having here a section "Computer arithmetic" could be a good starting point for this lacking article. D.Lazard (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you want to lump "computer arithmetic" as a section here, as computers do arithmetic of a wide variety of types, including symbolic arithmetic, integer arithmetic, modular arithmetic, floating point arithmetic, complex floating point arithmetic, matrix arithmetic, etc.

The section I called "approximate arithmetic" could plausibly be split or shortened a bit. I added it because I didn't feel that "real arithmetic" was really the appropriate heading for the subject, and thought concepts like "significant digits" etc. should be at least slightly described, since they are essential context for understanding scientific notation, which was included before.

Aside: In looking around, the existing articles Error analysis (mathematics) and Propagation of uncertainty do quite a poor job at providing explanations which are complete and accessible to a lay / student audience (or even an audience of scientists or engineers, frankly), and the article Significant figures is a weakly sourced and somewhat confusing mess. Observational error and Measurement uncertainty don't particularly clearly distinguish these terms and Instrument error is essentially a stub. Accuracy and precision talks about measurements per se but doesn't get into error propagation at all. I should maybe go ask at science/statistics/... wikiprojects if someone can figure out a way to insert a high school accessible explanation somewhere on Wikipedia in a place where folks who need can find it. –jacobolus (t) 15:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Computer arithmetic should be a dedicated article though. –jacobolus (t) 16:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be careful about how we name the sections. If we call a section "Approximate arithmetic" then readers assume that this is an established technical term for a type of arithmetic. If have a paragraph on floating-point arithmetic and put it into a section called "computer arithmetic" then readers get the impression that this is all or most there is to computer arithmetic.

Currently, we have a paragraph in the section "Others" that discusses how arithmetic can deal with uncertain measurements and errors using interval arithmetic and affine arithmetic. This would probably be the best place to include the newly added information. We might have to condense it down a little but topic-wise, this seems to be the best match. What do you think? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think readers are going to assume this is an "established technical term". "Real number arithmetic" is also not really an established technical term, but just a descriptive phrase which people most often (very misleadingly) use to mean binary floating point arithmetic which is decidedly not about real numbers per se, so by that standard shouldn't be a heading either.

If there's going to be a section about "real numbers" it should more clearly describe the way arbitrary real numbers cannot be represented as completed strings of decimal digits and how non-definable numbers cannot really be represented at all, so that the real number system is not really an arithmetic system at all, in any proper sense. Some real numbers can be represented as e.g. programs for generating decimal digits (which are very problematic for arithmetic because it takes potentially unbounded amounts of work to compute even a single digit of the result of a basic arithmetic operation applied to a pair of such numbers, related to the "table maker's dilemma") or programs for generating terms of a continued fraction (Bill Gosper had a proposal for doing arithmetic with such programs as part of HAKMEM and expanded into a longer unpublished manuscript which has been somewhat influential), or programs for generating rational approximations within any specified tolerance, called computable numbers. Most of what might be called "real number arithmetic" consists of symbolic computations (currently covered on Wikipedia at Computer algebra).

The (idealized) assumption of real number arithmetic is the basis for many computational geometry algorithms, but since real number arithmetic doesn't actually exist in practice, this causes severe problems because these algorithms end up pathologically breaking when implemented naïvely using IEEE floats. This has led to various kinds of workarounds, e.g. "exact geometric computation", which means something like "as precise as necessary to exactly describe the geometry" (see also Shewchuk's "robust predicates").

It would be good to have some clearer discussion of the distinction between floating point arithmetic of a specific precision, arithmetic of expanded precision (sometimes implemented using integer hardware or sometimes implemented using floating point hardware), arithmetic of arbitrary precision, etc.

D.Lazard has a decent point that splitting separate sections about uncertainty (not sure the right title) vs. computer binary floating point could be clearer. I would merge material about interval arithmetic into the section about uncertainty.

While we're here though, the high level organization of "Types of arithmetic" seems substantially problematic to me. Maybe we can think about possible alternative organization schemes. –jacobolus (t) 17:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The part about non-definable real numbers sounds interesting. Do you know of a source that could be used to support a sentence on this topic?

Regarding the name of the subsection, I'm not opposed to using D.Lazard's suggestion "Approximations and errors" instead of "Approximate arithmetic". In principle, we could leave the paragraph on floating-point arithmetic there since it is used as an approximation for computers. The paragraph on interval arithmetic and affine arithmetic could be included there as well. If you feel that this topic does not fit well under the main heading "Types of arithmetic", we could change that heading to "Areas", which is sufficiently vague to include all the subsections. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "types of arithmetic" name of the section is probably okay, and I probably shouldn't recommend a more significant reorganization unless I can think it through and be more specific and concrete. But even within this section, I'm not sure about what the best flow is to make the article read smoothly.

I think it's helpful somewhere to give readers a sense that numerical or mathematical expressions are manipulated or evaluated (1) to find mathematically exact concrete results by following specific set of rules on various structured data types (stuff like integers, fractions, quadratic surds, finite-symmetry-group elements, graphs, matrices with integer entries, etc.), which often boil down to something like fancy counting (this is the subject of discrete mathematics) (2) to make symbolic combinations of abstract quantities which might remain as undetermined symbolic variables or might represent a specific quantity but which might not be exactly representable in the common ways we ordinarily represent numbers (this is the subject of big parts of mathematics, but in particular mathematical analysis), (3) to make finite (approximate) calculations of mathematically exact quantities that we might not have any nice closed-form symbolic expression for, but can in principle be approximated to any desired precision (this is the subject of numerical analysis), (4) to combine, transform, or model inherently uncertain physical quantities, usually done in terms of some finite-precision approximate calculations using the tools of #3 (this is the subject of science, engineering, and statistics).

If we have sections about integer arithmetic and rational arithmetic, I don't quite know how to make a parallel section about "real arithmetic" because it's fundamentally different in character (#2 vs. #1 in my list above). I'm not sure what the right section title for that should be but I think the focus should be about how real number "arithmetic" is inherently abstract and theoretical, rather than concrete and practical. To make it practical we need some kind of method of approximation, and there are a variety of approaches that might be taken.

Then I think it's important to keep some section about uncertainty/error. But maybe this should be separate from sections about finite representations of infinite things, since it's a somewhat different idea again (#4 vs. #3 in my list above).

@D.Lazard does my discussion here make any sense, or am I just confusing myself? How do you think we should try to order / organize these sections? –jacobolus (t) 18:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the new subsection as suggested and moved the main part of the discussion of interval and affine arithmetic there. Do you know if the four-fold distinction you mentioned is discussed like this in reliable sources? I know that concepts like arithmetically definable number and computable number are discussed. Their definitions are not that straightforward so I'm divided on whether we should explain them in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what kind of sources would talk about this in a very deliberate and organized comparative fashion. I'm also not at all an expert in definable or computable numbers, etc. (you can see I edited my comment a few times to try to get it sort of right, but I wouldn't trust the above to not have some inaccuracies). –jacobolus (t) 20:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved Computer arithmetic into a stub. For the moment, it does not contain much more than the last paragraph of § Approximate arithmetic, and the prose of the latter is much better. I agree that the stub must be extended to include the various arithmetics that you cite. However, as the core of computer arithmetic is primarily floating point arithmetic and multiple-precision arithmetic, I do not see any objection for having here a section on computer arithmetic, with a template {{main|Computer arithmetic}}. D.Lazard (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be an article "Computer arithmetic". There is already a wikidata item (and corresponding articles in 2 languages, but not much in them) and a category (which could be useful to write the article). — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]