Talk:Integer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Complex constructs reverted[edit]

  • Whether this article is better addressed as being about "traditionally known integers", or about "commonly used numbers" (aren't these the reals/rationals?), or left uncommented at all, is beyond my desires to judge about.
  • Being at an article titled "Integer", I think it is more natural to offer a link to the complex "Algebraic integers", than linking to "Integrality", which redirects to "Integral element", as it was before, even when this is the more encompassing topic, containing the algebraic integers; so I agree to this change.
  • However, I consider the "Gaussian integers" to be at a comparable (search)-"distance" to "integers", and so, offering a link to those is, imho, no undue service, and should not be reverted.
  • I was fully aware of "complex", adorning "construct", being ambiguous, and nevertheless intentionally put it there, since both interpretations, even regarding arbitrary qualifications of any reader, fit perfectly to the wording, and can easily substantiated by following the links. I think my version of introducing the algebraic integers is better.

Thanks for correcting my reoccurring confusion about which/that. Purgy (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the last point: "complex" is also confusing, because many algebraic integers are reals. Moreover, algebraic integers have been introduced as a generalization of usual integers. It is thus more informative to recall this, than to say that this is a complex construction. This is what is meant by "more general".
About the hatnote: my edit was intended to respect at best the guideline WP:Hatnote. I cannot imagine a reader arriving here, who does not know that integers are some kind of numbers. Thus the first parameter of {{about}} is of no help, and must be omitted. It is true that Gaussian integer is an important related concept, but the hatnote is not a "See also" section. Moreover, outside the context of Gaussian integers, and probably also inside this context, a Gaussian integer is never qualified simply as "integer". It is thus unlikely that a reader comes here when searching for Gaussian integers. On the other hand, algebraic integers are often called simply integer in algebraic number theory. Therefore a disambiguation is needed. For integral elements, the reason for not mentioning them in the hatnote is similar as for Gaussian integers: in English, it is unlikely to make confusion between "integral" and "integer" (this is not the case in other languages, such as French, where "entier" is used for both integral elements and integers). D.Lazard (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explications, but for the time being I still entertain my subtle reasoned disagreements, adding to them the doubt on "reals" within the complex numbers being confusing. Purgy (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

In the section "Constuction" the follwing sentence needs fixing: "There exist at least a tenth of such constructions of signed integers" (@Vasywriter:?). Paul August 01:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced "at least a tenth of" with "at least ten".

--Vasywriter (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Paul August 14:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure that this was the intended meaning. According to Purgy's edit summary, he made a guess as to the number (and this was mangled into the "tenth" statement) and he replaced it by "umpteen". I think, and I don't want to speak for Purgy, that he might have meant something like "zillions" which would also be unacceptable. Perhaps a simple "many" is what is called for. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think that Vasywriter was the one added the that section. Paul August 19:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reduce guessing about my guess: I guessed the quantity, addressed by "at least a tenth of", to be "at least tens of", and so to be roughly in the interval for which in German the term "Zig" (the word ending of the first integer multiples of ten: zwanzig, vierzig, fünfzig, ...) is used. Furthermore, I recall to have seen and heard the use of the word "umpteen" for this purpose, synonymous perhaps to the rare "tens of" and analogous to "thousands of". Please, note that this formulation, in contrast to "at least" or "more than", supplies not only a lower, but also an upper bound in a vague manner (not hundreds). Cheers, Purgy (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Yes he did, so I guess that "at least ten" is the intended meaning. However, that statement could be considered WP:SYNTH, so maybe "many" should still be considered. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest being vaguer than "at least ten". "Many" is OK but maybe "a number of" is even better. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of you for your wise comments. It is encouraging for Wikipedia that clever people take time to carefully examine the meaning of words. Here are some elements:

  • 1. "A tenth of" was indeed incorrect; it should have been: "a ten of", but this was too vague. Thanks for pointing out the issue.
  • 2. "At least ten" is correct, because the cited paper lists ten different term algebras that can be used to build signed integers.
  • 3. The suggestions "umpteem" or "a number of" are also correct and, even more: they are inspiring. Indeed, given any , I think it exists a term algebra having free constructors, such that there is a bijection between signed integers and the ground terms of this algebra. So, there is an infinity of algebras, which is more than ten.
  • 4. However, only those term algebras with a small number of constructors (such as the ten listed in the cited paper) are of practical interest, as the higher the number of constructors, the more complex the proofs (as the number of case disjunctions increases).

So, "more than ten", "many", "an infinity" would all be correct, although they are useful/small algebras and useless/large ones. --Vasywriter (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subset Dilemma[edit]

Can someone explain why the naturals are a subset of the integers given the distinct set theoretic definitions? If an integer is defined by an entire equivalence class of ordered pairs of natural numbers, then the naturals are not themselves a subset of the integers. The article does go on to say that the naturals are embedded in the integers by a mapping n to [(n,0)], but that is just a convoluted way of saying they arent actually the same thing. 50.35.103.217 (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of convolutedness is no hindrance to state something, as long as it is well formed, and I believe that it is not necessary to permanently belabor the difference between "being a subset" and "being embedded", as long as the second is strictly shown once. I consider it a fair use to call the identified objects "the naturals within the integers", abbreviated to "the naturals". Purgy (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of integers[edit]

I think you should tell us what is the meaning of integers 41.116.100.253 (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of integer[edit]

Integer-is colloquially defined as a number that can be written without fractional (component for example ,21,04,0and-2048 are integers 41.116.100.253 (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Entier relatif" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Entier relatif and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 15#Entier relatif until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
20:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

@D.Lazard reverted my edits as "controversial", which I guess means he disagrees with them. Lazard, what exactly is your problem? The lead has never been discussed before besides the recent comments by 41.116.100.253 that the article does not explain "the meaning of integers", which my edits presumably fix.

Also the comments from Cabillon are not unsourced, they are from the "Earliest Uses of Symbols of Number Theory" page. I guess I also could cite page 114 of https://www.amazon.com/Apprenticeship-Mathematician-Andre-Weil/dp/3764326506 for the part that's the André Weil quote. But Cabillon is listed as a source both on Wikipedia and in published scholarly books like [1]. He was a moderator of the Historia Mathematica mailing list so presumably has at least some authority in this area. . Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics[edit]

What are integers in mathematics 190.80.50.12 (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. Dhrm77 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2023[edit]

Please change the word "number" to "numbers" (explanation of the german word "Zahlen" which means "numbers" in plural and not "number" in singular) Manloeste (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done small jars tc 11:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Limit?[edit]

Are there infinitely many integers or is the negative limit -2147483648 and the positive limit 2147483647? 84.151.244.223 (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are infinitely many integers, as stated in the first paragraph of this article. –jacobolus (t) 17:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]