Talk:Multiplication sign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated C-class, Low-priority)
WikiProject Mathematics
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.
Mathematics rating:
C Class
Low Priority
 Field: Basics
WikiProject Computer science (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bad title[edit]

i think this should be moved to Multiplcation symbolVincent.premysler 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)vincent

But this page is not only about the multiplication symbol. The cross product is a totally different operation for which the × notation is also used. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

well then this article should be moved to times sign and cross. dicklyon said so onis number sign ok Vincent.premysler 12:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)vincent

Well, the more accurate title should be Notation for the cross product, multiplication, and Cartesian product. I think × is the best name for the article, since the article is about the × symbol and its uses. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

but i think it would be hard to type it in with no redirect links and also i had a conflict with dicklyon about the title of number sign. i wanted to change the title of number sign to #. i dont like this. just move × to Notation for the cross product multiplication, and Cartesain product Vincent.premysler 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC) vincent

Vincent, did you see the movie Because I Said So with Diane Keaton? It's really terrible, but should clarify that "dicklyon said so" is not a sensible reason for anything. If I were you, I'd make the argument like I made on the number sign page that we usually name articles by the name of their subject, not by the subject itself. You can look up the preferred unicode name for ×, which I believe is multiplication sign, and you can look for examples of the names of other articles on punctuation and symbols, and try to make a case for what you are proposing. If it comes down to just a disagreement between you and one other editor, you can call for a third opinion using WP:3O. Welcome to wikipedia; not invest some energy in figuring out how it works. Dicklyon 17:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

it actually was with two other editors. Vincent.premysler 17:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC) vincent

we usally name articles by the name of the subject. Vincent.premysler 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC) vincent

Oleg, if I read his user page right, Vincent is a toddler, so we should perhaps give him some slack. Anyway, you can probably see my position, that using the character's name would be preferable to using the character itself as an article title. We can still discuss its various meanings, and have redirects from alternative names. But it's one character, and I don't see any precedent for naming articles on characters by the character itself. What do you think? Dicklyon 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that in general using characters that can't be typed as article title is not good. However, as far as this particular article is concerned, I have yet to see a good name for it (again, multiplication sign won't work, as one can use &midot; for multiplication, and × for things which are not multiplication). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it has much to do with whether the character can be typed. Look at number sign, which is easy to type; it has a myriad of names and uses, yet the article uses the preferred unicode name, which is not a bad convention. All of its names and meanings are nevertheless discussed. That precedent says your argument has not held sway in similar situations. Dicklyon 04:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Also note that +, -, , %, ~, ^, $, @, =, `, \, ;, *, !, etc. are all redirects to names of the characters; so is / but it does't work as a wikilink. So, let's do it, OK? Or do we need a third opinion? Dicklyon 05:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, the hybrid name article refers to it as a "multiplication sign", and all of the listed mathematical uses are forms of multiplication or product computation (the monadic APL operator being the exception). Dicklyon 06:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, if you want to move it, fine with me. But then the double redirects need to be fixed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem; there's a bot that usually fixes them within a day if I don't get them all myself. Dicklyon 16:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


There are remarks about a similar glyph in Unicode for the vector or cross product, which say that this appears bigger than the normal times symbol. However, with the font my browser displays the page with, the vector product symbol is smaller than the times symbol. For comparison: U+00D7 = × (times), U+2A2F = ⨯ (vector product) I can't really confirm this now. If this can't be verified, should the size be mentioned at all? smiler (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That was my observation too. I can only assume that the previous statement was in error or that it varies widely by font. — CharlotteWebb 17:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


I've never heard this called the "into" symbol. Can someone give a reference for this? --Doradus (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

See below. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Into is not used for multipication[edit]

In mathematics, "into" is used only for division, not for multiplication. Probably this confusion came from Latin language. In Latin, "in" is used for multiplication to read multiplication sign.

For example, "Clavis Mathematicae" written by William Oughtred in page 7 describes "4 in 6 fiet 24". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozycube (talkcontribs) 12:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of its origin, the use of the word into to denote multiplication is common enough that it is listed under the definition of the word in the Oxford English Dictionary Online, with the example, "to multiply x into y".--Joshua Issac (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Dot symbol?[edit]

Isn't a dot (interpunct) also used as a multiplication sign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say there are many different symbols used as the multiplication sign, so currently the article does not correspond to the general view on the subject. So, the caption in the image, as describing "the" multiplication sign is not entirely true, because this is not the only one. I was introduced to the dot symbol as being "the multiplication sign" - verified by basically all mathematics I have encountered every since - and it is true in the context of all math education within one nation, for example. Mstuomel (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
From what I've understood, "×" is used in everyday life and "·" in mathematics. We were clearly told in math class that "×" is used for cross product of two vectors. Interpunct article though says "×" is often used in English-speaking countries. But it is often used in other countries, too, since the use of vectors in everyday life isn't that common. (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)