This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles 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.
This identity doesn't in any way help understanding what the floor function is. Nor is it somthing special: there are probably dozens of identities involving the floor function. It disrupts the flow of the article. If you want to include it, please explain why you want to on this page before doing so and try to fit it in with the rest of the article. -- Arvindn 13:57 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)
If there are dozens of identities involving the floor function, then they should all be listed in this article. Suppressing information certainly doesn't help the reader. But I agree with you that it was disrupting the flow of the article. AxelBoldt 03:14 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)
The three functions discussed on the article page definitely should be in the same article, but the article name is slightly misleading. Can I suggest that whatever the collective term is for these functions be used? I'd move the page myself but I wouldn't know what to move it to. Neonumbers 02:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I oppose. Rounding is something different than these: reducing the precision in the most accurate way possible. I could somewhat see including rounding here, but I would object to that too. Baccyak4H 03:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Update. After reading Omegatron's vote, I realized I was not clear with my intention. I oppose merging, under the condition that rounding functions becomes a category, not an article. Then floor, ceiling, round (others?) would be individual articles, with appropriate crosslinks. Under this organization, I would support a skeleton article on rounding functions which would read like a disambiguation page, with links to the specific functions. Although the Categories:rounding_functions page might fit this bill. Baccyak4H 14:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would argue maybe we should. Clearly most specifics written about floor/ceiling are specific to them only. The spirit may be similar, yes, but not the specifics (exception: derivatives, which are some Dirac delta type animal...). But I have made my case, as have you, and others. I accept the community's wisdom. And yes, there are a lot of other controversies in WP that are far more problematic. If the page is merged like the trig page, I still feel it can work well, although some cleanup/reorg might be needed. Baccyak4H 03:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I oppose the move too, for the same reason. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Support - Floor function is of course the wrong title for this article, which covers several rounding methods. — Omegatron 05:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Discussion A better name could then be floor and ceiling functions.
The redlink rounding function should rather redirect to rounding. Note that floor and celing functions are very particular cases of rounding, namely rounding to integers. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
How about "Truncation functions"? I am not wed to this name, just wanted to see what everyone thought. Baccyak4H 03:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Rounding 4.6 up to 5 is not truncation. — Omegatron 00:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Very good point. Although now that you mention that, it seems "rounding functions" suffers from the same drawback, say, floor(4.6). I like neither now, but "rounding" does seem the lesser evil. Can we do better? Baccyak4H
Oppose/support. I oppose the suggested name, but I strongly support a rename of the article. Regarding the suggested name, as previously said, neither floor, nor ceiling is a rounding function. The only rouding function is round... You might call this article Integral conversion functions, but round should be included as well in that case. A good suggestion already made is simply Floor and ceiling functions, along with the relevant redirects from Floor function and Ceiling function. — Sagie 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I saw somewhere a redirect or reference to "discretization"; I would perhaps consider "discretization functions" as an alternate renaming. Advantage: covers all types of functions discussed. Disadvantage: ugly name. Comments? Baccyak4H 16:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment - It would make much more sense to split to floor function and ceiling function. They are similar in functionality (both round) but are diametrically different. I found it, for a lack of a better word, "disturbing" that I was redirected to an article entitled "floor function" when I was looking for the ceiling function. The proposition of renaming the article also addresses the problem of having the ceiling and floor functions cohabitating the same article. Just as well combine war and peace. Cburnett 01:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
No. War and peace are opposites. The floor and ceiling function are the same thing, but in different directions. I don't know how anyone could think they belong in different articles. Wikipedia articles are about a topic, not a word. — Omegatron 04:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Floor function should keep its status as a title, as Wolfram MathWorld uses it in their title. Also split the articles into ceiling function. Sr13 07:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not Wolfram MathWorld. — Omegatron 14:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose The rounding function is something else, Floor(x+ .5) or similar. Splitting is probably unnecessary, since all this says about the ceiling function is its relationship to the floor function. Septentrionalis 21:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The current state of the article is a Frankenstein's Monster reflecting both a time when the fractional part function was defined in the introduction, and now, when it has been moved to the Applications section. For example, the sentence in which the fractional part function is first defined begins "As stated above, ..." I propose putting all the fractional part material in the Applications section, including the fractional part properties. Thoughts? DRE (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Basically the entire truncation article could be folded into the truncation subsection of this article with minimal effort; the title of this article would not need to change. --Joel B. Lewis (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
"None of the formulas in this section is of any practical use."
Very entertaining statement, one that to some would make the section even more worthwhile. Too bad it is impossible to prove. Pressed to correct it, one might substitute the weaker but less objectionable, "Perhaps one day some formula in this section will become something other than a useless curiosity." 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
It is absolutely true that none of the formulas is of any practical use. That statement is not contradicted by the assertion that some day someone may find a use for one of them, because it does not say "..and never will be of any practical use". However, it is very difficult to imagine any way that any such formula ever could be of any use. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
We have given this rather more discussion than it deserves but I stand by my assertion and suggest that you have a tough row to hoe in trying to contradict it. I would suggest that you adopt my position: keep the disputed statement; it's entertaining, quite likely correct, and in any event a harmless comment about something that is tangential to the thrust of the article.18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I referenced the claim from a reliable source (Ribenboim) I think Crandall and Pomerance say pretty much the same thing - Virginia-American (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Graphs with unlabelled axes are meaningless, so could someone please fix the three meaningless graphs in this article. Readers should not have to guess what the graphs are supposed to mean as they may guess wrongly!22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)