Talk:0.999...: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:0.999.../Archive 20) (bot |
→Root of student confusion?: new section |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
It strikes me that the Stillwell reference for the section on the Elementary proof is not ideal. Can anyone find a better reference? [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 22:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
It strikes me that the Stillwell reference for the section on the Elementary proof is not ideal. Can anyone find a better reference? [[User:Tito Omburo|Tito Omburo]] ([[User talk:Tito Omburo|talk]]) 22:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Root of student confusion? == |
|||
Is there any elementary education literature on confusion caused by teaching real numbers in terms of decimal expansions instead of axiomatically or geometrically? I believe that if such an [[WP:RS|RS]] exits then the article should discuss the issue. -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:55, 14 April 2024
This article is undergoing a featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria.
Please feel free to If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 0.999... 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: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
This is the talk page for discussing changes to the 0.999... article itself. Please place discussions on the underlying mathematical issues on the arguments page. For questions about the maths involved, try posting to the reference desk instead. |
|
0.999... is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 25, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Arguments Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
Yet another anon
Moved to Arguments subpage
Terminating decimals
"Terminating decimal" is a technical term that must be linked in such an elementary article. Previously, it was linked to Repeating decimal. I agree that this is not a convenient target. I have created a redirect, and linked it to an anchor in the lead of Decimal. If this link is not correct, this is not a problem of 0.999... but a problem of the redirect page or of the target page. In any case, the link Terminating decimal must be kept. D.Lazard (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Agree. Since this term may be unfamiliar to some of our readers a link is necessary. If the article that it the target of the link needs improvement that should be discussed/implemented there, not here. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- I am a native speaker of English, which is fundamentally the target of WP:en. "Terminating decimal" is not a technical term, at all, it is simply the participle adjective "terminating", which means "it stops", qualifying "decimal". If there really were an article "terminating decimal", a link would be unnecessary, IMO, but not confusing. The "repeating decimal" article is not very good, since the first paragraph tells us that a terminating decimal is not a "repeating decimal", then the second paragraph backtracks, and says that a "terminating decimal" is one where the repeating sequence is just zeros. It cannot help to link a self-explanatory term to this. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Imaginatorium: Adjectives need precise definitions in math texts and this is one instance. A decimal expansion is not an event in time or place in space so the English definition does not apply, and is in any case too imprecise. It is very unlikely you are going to get consensus in favor of your view.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- It seems also that Imaginatorium did not notice that "terminating decimal" does not link anymore to Repeating decimal; the target is an anchor in Decimal . D.Lazard (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- I am a native speaker of English, which is fundamentally the target of WP:en. "Terminating decimal" is not a technical term, at all, it is simply the participle adjective "terminating", which means "it stops", qualifying "decimal". If there really were an article "terminating decimal", a link would be unnecessary, IMO, but not confusing. The "repeating decimal" article is not very good, since the first paragraph tells us that a terminating decimal is not a "repeating decimal", then the second paragraph backtracks, and says that a "terminating decimal" is one where the repeating sequence is just zeros. It cannot help to link a self-explanatory term to this. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
One more proof
According to the formation rule, the reciprocal part of the number is 9 and the non-revolving part is zero. Accordingly (9-0)/9=1. Please add this.
Bera678 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- This is not a proof. Moreover, for being added here, a proof requires to be published in a textbook, and you do not provide any source. D.Lazard (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe I didn't fully express what I meant. But I'm sure it's proof. Although this is based on personal research, we can find a reference. Bera678 (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- It certainly is not a proof. It is merely quoting a rule of thumb for obtaining the value, but the rule of thumb is valid only because there is a proof of it. JBW (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Did you look at the formation rule in the 'in compressed form' section of the Repeating decimal article? If you looked you can see that our number is equal to 9/9 to 1. Moreover, this evidence may be more understandable to readers. Bera678 (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- It certainly is not a proof. It is merely quoting a rule of thumb for obtaining the value, but the rule of thumb is valid only because there is a proof of it. JBW (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe I didn't fully express what I meant. But I'm sure it's proof. Although this is based on personal research, we can find a reference. Bera678 (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
FAR notice
This is an FA from 2006 that underwent FAR in 2010 and was kept. This article does not currently meet the featured article criteria:
- It uses a mixture of parenthetical referencing, which is deprecated, and inline references, failing 2.c.
- The "Elementary proof" section is entirely unreferenced, and many other sections have unreferenced paragraphs, some of which appears to contain OR (see, e.g., "Impossibility of unique representation"), failing 1.c.
- There are weasel words and editorializing throughout and the writing style is at times casual, failing 2.
Pinging @JBL; I saw your recent FA and hoped you might be able to take a look. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts I'll deal the citation style. I'm changing to sfnp for all short citations. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- The rest of the cites need work too; many of them don't use any citation formats and some of them are ref tags with {{harv}}s inside them. Since there are variations in citation style, I think they can all be changed to {{sfnp}} for conformity. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- One additional thing: I don't see any kind of thorough source checking in either the FA or FAR discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts An additional thing but optional likely. I do think that this article uses many types of math templates, math in TeX, and by simply just using HTML code. So I prefer to use Tex instead, right after completing the citations format problems. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not really well-versed in math templates on Wikipedia, so I can't really opine on what to use, but I agree that using plain html code is not the best. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts An additional thing but optional likely. I do think that this article uses many types of math templates, math in TeX, and by simply just using HTML code. So I prefer to use Tex instead, right after completing the citations format problems. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, voorts. Unfortunately I've discovered about myself that I'm good at starting something more or less from scratch, and good at local spot-checking, but not very good at the kind of work needed here. I'll try to take a look, though. --JBL (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am willing to help with this one. Ping me if want help with anything. I will conduct a source check. For the record: I do not see any problem with the casual writing style, given the readership of this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain what "weasel words" means in this context? An example or two would help... Imaginatorium (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, here's a couple:
- "While most authors choose to define"
- "Many algebraic arguments have been provided"
- voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- See also WP:WEASEL. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand the assertion that either of these is weasel-y. These assertions might or might not be adequately sourced (to be clear: I haven't checked), but if they reflect the sources I don't see what's objectionable about them. --JBL (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- "While most authors choose to define" is not in the source, so I have removed it. I'm not seeing support for the assertion "Division by zero occurs in some popular discussions of 0.999..." either. Unless someone can find one, I suggest we remove the entire bullet point. Apart from that sentence though, it is correctly sourced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7 @JayBeeEll @Dedhert.Jr: Where are we on this? Has enough been done to fix this, or should this proceed to FAR? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts I'm replying. Will trying to convert again as soon as possible, and copyedit; trying my best. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have converted the format footnotes into sfnp and harvtxt, and all math format in Tex. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts I'm replying. Will trying to convert again as soon as possible, and copyedit; trying my best. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- The "Division by zero occurs in some popular discussions..." reads like WP:SYNTH to me (that is, WP:SYNTH dressed up with citations to the background topics being synthesized). There's maybe something to be said about how understanding limits can give a precise meaning to the intuitive idea of "division by zero" (or "division by infinity"), and limits are also important here, but without a source explicitly drawing that connection, we shouldn't include it. XOR'easter (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7 @JayBeeEll @Dedhert.Jr: Where are we on this? Has enough been done to fix this, or should this proceed to FAR? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- "While most authors choose to define" is not in the source, so I have removed it. I'm not seeing support for the assertion "Division by zero occurs in some popular discussions of 0.999..." either. Unless someone can find one, I suggest we remove the entire bullet point. Apart from that sentence though, it is correctly sourced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand the assertion that either of these is weasel-y. These assertions might or might not be adequately sourced (to be clear: I haven't checked), but if they reflect the sources I don't see what's objectionable about them. --JBL (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- See also WP:WEASEL. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, here's a couple:
- Unless there are any objections, I plan on bringing this to FAR one week from now. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Elementary proof supported by Stillwell?
It strikes me that the Stillwell reference for the section on the Elementary proof is not ideal. Can anyone find a better reference? Tito Omburo (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Root of student confusion?
Is there any elementary education literature on confusion caused by teaching real numbers in terms of decimal expansions instead of axiomatically or geometrically? I believe that if such an RS exits then the article should discuss the issue. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)