This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ordinal number article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Ordinal number was one of the Mathematics good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
A section quoting Russell in Principles of Mathematics was reverted as "surreal"! Now an illustration, as Venus has negative fourth apparent magnitude, is appended. Any comments? — Rgdboer ( talk) 03:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
By way of explanation: In scientific notation a x 10N there is some discussion concerning the label for N beyond mere exponent. Some usage of order of magnitude has been noted but also that at the disambiguation page order (mathematics) nearly all the uses refer to a heirachial organization where N corresponds to an ordinal number such as at decade (log scale). A number of these orders of magnitude have been assembled in a WP:Category, and naturally with scientific notation there are negative Ns. Thus it seems necessary to acknowledge negative ordinals to properly document these order of magnitude articles in that category. — Rgdboer ( talk) 01:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Bertrand Russell wrote his book in response to continental developements in logic and set theory. How dare editors remove the on-topic WP:RS? Why are negative ordinals WP:Out of scope of this article? So what that the transfinite ordinals are the "interesting ones", the encyclopedia is to serve all readers, young and old. The article transfinite number is your focus, but the general reader needs to know that there are negative ordinals, especially for the reason given above. — Rgdboer ( talk) 04:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
There is an image with the caption "A graphical "matchstick" representation of the ordinal ω². Each stick corresponds to an ordinal of the form ω·m+n where m and n are natural numbers."
It's probably my own confusion, but the caption makes little sense to me. Assuming a "matchstick" is a single vertical line, shouldn't the caption read "... ω^3 [not ^2]. Each stick corresponds to ... ω." ? In any event, isn't the "+n" in the quoted caption useless? Jamesdowallen ( talk) 00:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I am no expert, to be sure, on ordinals but can we please finally dump these attempts at graphical representations? the 'spiral' and 'matchstick' images -- they add nothing to the explanation and as far as I can see are not even discussed in the article text. 71.139.124.132 ( talk) 13:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ordinal number article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Ordinal number was one of the Mathematics good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
A section quoting Russell in Principles of Mathematics was reverted as "surreal"! Now an illustration, as Venus has negative fourth apparent magnitude, is appended. Any comments? — Rgdboer ( talk) 03:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
By way of explanation: In scientific notation a x 10N there is some discussion concerning the label for N beyond mere exponent. Some usage of order of magnitude has been noted but also that at the disambiguation page order (mathematics) nearly all the uses refer to a heirachial organization where N corresponds to an ordinal number such as at decade (log scale). A number of these orders of magnitude have been assembled in a WP:Category, and naturally with scientific notation there are negative Ns. Thus it seems necessary to acknowledge negative ordinals to properly document these order of magnitude articles in that category. — Rgdboer ( talk) 01:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Bertrand Russell wrote his book in response to continental developements in logic and set theory. How dare editors remove the on-topic WP:RS? Why are negative ordinals WP:Out of scope of this article? So what that the transfinite ordinals are the "interesting ones", the encyclopedia is to serve all readers, young and old. The article transfinite number is your focus, but the general reader needs to know that there are negative ordinals, especially for the reason given above. — Rgdboer ( talk) 04:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
There is an image with the caption "A graphical "matchstick" representation of the ordinal ω². Each stick corresponds to an ordinal of the form ω·m+n where m and n are natural numbers."
It's probably my own confusion, but the caption makes little sense to me. Assuming a "matchstick" is a single vertical line, shouldn't the caption read "... ω^3 [not ^2]. Each stick corresponds to ... ω." ? In any event, isn't the "+n" in the quoted caption useless? Jamesdowallen ( talk) 00:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I am no expert, to be sure, on ordinals but can we please finally dump these attempts at graphical representations? the 'spiral' and 'matchstick' images -- they add nothing to the explanation and as far as I can see are not even discussed in the article text. 71.139.124.132 ( talk) 13:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)