Talk:Cartesian coordinate system

1064:

in terms which could reasonably be regarded as belonging to algebra and calculus. In the context in which this appears in the article, it is probably reasonably true that the kinds of geometric properties considered at the time when Cartesian coordinates were introduced can be expressed in terms of algebra and calculus, but since the statement in the form in which it is given is not justifiable, on reflection I think probably the best thing to do is to remove the word "every". I therefore intend to remove that word once I have posted this message, but of course I will be willing and interested to read any arguments in favour of its retention. (Well, any arguments by anyone who comes anywhere near to knowing what they are talking about.)

1051:, I have thought some more about this. What do we mean by algebra? My post above in effect treats "algebra" as including anything which can be expressed in terms of an algebraic structure (in this case a finite dimensional real linear algebra) but that is a dubious interpretation; for example the metric and topological properties of such a space are not usually regarded as "algebraic". One could argue about exactly what features are added to the situation by the words "and calculus", but again topological properties are not, I think, generally regarded as being part of calculus. Above, I took issue with your statement on the basis that the quote attributed above to 351:

geometry" is not aimed to categorize the subject (this is the object of the categories appearing at the end of the article). It is aimed to tell to readers whether they could be interested to the article. Here, everybody knows geometry, but people who know analytic geometry, know generally what are Cartesian coordinates, and thus your first phrase is not useful for them. On the other hand, many people encounter Cartesian coordinates in their studies or their work, without knowing that their use is called analytic geometry. This is the case, for example, of students in physics. This is for such people that the first phrase is intended.

938:. Have you asked for opinions at the wikiproject (see headings at top of this page)? I have not done more than glance at the issue and will take no part in discussing what should be done. However, you might bear in mind that articles generally focus on current practice, that is, what do people mean when they talk about the Cartesian coordinate system now? Please do not reply to this: I just raised an issue for you to consider. I suggest starting a new section with a brief outline of what problem you see in the current article and what should be done to fix it, with a brief explanation. Then try to get other opinions per 335:“Cartesian coordinates are used in almost all parts of geometry and its applications”. However, this does not mean that “Cartesian coordinates” do not belong to a more specific branch of mathematics. Belonging to a specific branch of mathematics does not restrict the application of a mathematical topic in other fields. Coordinate systems are, in fact, a topic in Analytic Geometry, as it combines geometry with algebra. By the way, coordinate systems are NOT used in plane geometry. That’s another reason why coordinate systems are not generally a topic in “geometry” but are actually a topic in “analytic geometry”. 1327:

same thing does not have any bearing on whether or not the statement (whether true or false) that they aren't is inconsistent with the statement (whether true or false) that the axes of a coordinate system are number lines. And that is quite apart from the fact that there being a bijection between the elements of two sets is not at all the same thing as their being the same thing. If you really can't see those two points then you should probably not be trying to improve the logic of the treatment of mathematical topics in articles.

244: 234: 213: 180: 962:"Allowing the expression of every problem of geometry in terms of algebra and calculus" may perhaps not be ideal wording, but the essential point is not invalidated by the fact that calculus had not yet been invented, any more than "the invention of the wheel has had revolutionary effects on transport, such as enabling the manufacture of motor cars" is invalidated by the fact that the motor car was not invented until long after the invention of the wheel. 1144: 327: 140: 171: 1654:

entire space, as in the case of the number line, a linear axis is entirely trivial; you can't spin or reflect anything about it, because there is nothing outside of it. In the context of a line, the only relevant kind of transformation is reflection in a point, but a point center of reflection is rarely if ever called the "axis" either. I'm not quite sure when the term

1991:– that is true; neither of the quoted passages from the sources you cited is making a definition either. Let me give a more explicitly analogous example: Imagine I am standing in a barn with you, and I point to a cow, saying "the farm animal by the water trough is called a cow". Can you see how that is not the same as a statement that 1753:"the horizontal number line is called the x-axis" is not Jacobulus's statement; it is a statement of one of your sources. The logical consequence of this statement is that some number lines are axes, not that all number lines are axes as you pretend. In any case, bolding your assertions do not make them true. 1653:

originates from the line which remains fixed for a spinning object like a wheel, lathe, or the Earth (related to "axle"). Later the sense was broadened to include discrete kinds of spinning such as reflection across a line in the plane ("axis of symmetry"). When there is only one line involved as the

1063:

it as such, but on reflection I think I was wrong: that was based on an interpretation of "algebra" as "any property of an algebraic space", but that is an unhelpfully broad interpretation of the word. Indeed, your example is highly pertinent: it would be difficult to express the Jordan curve theorem

997:

Well, in the context of Cartesian coordinate "geometry" clearly means Euclidean geometry, and Euclidean space is isomorphic to linear algebra in a vector space over the real numbers, and therefore every proposition about geometry in Euclidean space can indeed be expressed as an equivalent proposition

1565:

It does not need to be restated that a number line can be considered its own axis. This is (a) unnecessary and redundant, and (b) a confusing distraction. (It is also not a claim supported by the provided sources, both of which just said that a number line is a line with numbers on it, and that each

1002:

of every problem of geometry in terms of algebra and calculus" (my emphasis) which is certainly possible. That is true whatever you may have in mind when you refer to "reducing" every problem of geometry to algebra and calculus, and whether or not such "reduction" in your intended sense is possible.

2359:

I'm just chiming in to note that Persianwise has been blocked indefinitely for continuing to edit war after having been previously blocked for it. Knowledge (XXG) is not a game to be won - we settle disputes by constructive discussion, not by wearing down opponents with legalesque interrogation and

1767:

While I don't think any published sources are likely to say this explicitly, I think it would be defensible to say something along the lines of "a number line is its own axis", in the sense that as a one-dimensional affine space it can be said to have one coordinate axis, coinciding with itself. I

1718:

You don't need to make your text extra large or colorful. The folks participating here are all capable of reading ordinary-sized black text. You still have not provided any sources which validate your claim. The two sources you did provide say something entirely different, as I explained. I don't

1326:

That is completely missing the point. You said that there was a contradiction between the statement that axes of a coordinate system are number lines and the statement that a number line and an axis are two different things. Whether it is or is not true that a number line and an axis are both the

584:

was an improvement. In my opinion, there are two exceptions: (1) the cn tag needs double curly braces instead of single curly-braces, and (2) I think the spelling out of the meaning of bijection (that each point corresponds to a real number and each real number corresponds to a point) was a less

350:

Thank for this course on a topic that I know well since many years. I know that analytic geometry is a part of geometry, although, nowadays, it is more the name of courses in colleges, than that of a specific area of geometry; this is not the problem here. The problem is that the first phrase "In

2139:

are synonymous and readily grasped by most. Therefore, including a clarification within the article about the interchangeable use of these terms would benefit those encountering them across different educational resources, even those less mathematically inclined. This concise explanation should

1442:

The main meaning of isomorphism is the assertion that two seemingly different things are actually the same thing, except possibly for the names of their elements and the way the operations defined on them work. This is an advanced topic, hard to grasp for those who lack in-depth mathematical

800:

is about a subject of mathematics. To edit a mathematical subject, like any other scientific field, one must have the proper knowledge. Without the proper knowledge, any attempt to edit or make changes leads to inaccuracies that would confuse and misinform the readers. Notice that the user

530:. A number line is essentially a one-dimensional coordinate system. If the number line isn’t considered an axis, then where would the axis be located? If you answer this question correctly, you would understand that number lines and axes are two different names referring to the same concept. 445:

About the first phrase: "In analytic geometry" is not wrong, but it may be confusing to many readers, who are not supposed to know what is analytic geometry: for knowing analytic geometry, one must know Cartesion coordinates, and this article if for people who do not know what are Cartesian

334:

To let you know, coordinate systems in general, and Cartesian coordinate systems in particular, are topics in Analytic Geometry. Just like any other mathematical topic, they are used in other branches of mathematics and have applications in many other fields of science. You have stated that

1852:

Anyone with basic knowledge of mathematics, even school pupils, learns that "number line," "coordinate line," "number axis," and simply "axis" are the same mathematical objects. References supporting this fact were provided on the following webpage and were also mentioned on your talk

1033:, and certainly this is not something expressable only with algebra and calculus (at least with the method of coordinate geometry). So in my opinion, both three sentences make sense (as you have pointed out for the third one), but I'd pick the first two of them as the better choices. 446:

coordinates (otherwise, they do not need this article). Also, people who have never heard of analytic geometry may have encountered Cartesian coordinates in other contexts, and they may understand the phrase "In analytic geometry" as an indication that the article is not for them.

375:

For your information, although analytic geometry combines geometry and algebra, it is neither a branch of geometry nor algebra. If you were correct in saying that analytic geometry is a branch of geometry, then you could also say it is a branch of algebra too, which is not the

1920:

by Knowledge (XXG) standards. Neither one has a listed author, and neither seems to have been formally published.) Everyone here has well beyond a "basic knowledge of mathematics"; adopting a condescending tone is tedious and does not make your argument any more convincing.

1427:

You are saying that the x-axis and the y-axis of a Cartesian coordinate system are the "same thing" since they are both isomorphic to the field of the real numbers, and thus they are isomorphic. However, these two axes are different, and thus they cannot be the same thing.

1633:"When a horizontal number line and a vertical number line are lined up so that the 0s meet, a coordinate plane is formed. The horizontal number line is called the x-axis. The vertical number line is called the y-axis. The point where the x- and y-axes meet is the origin." 2131:. Although mathematical definitions are universally valid and transcend language, their presentation can vary across educational levels. My references from secondary school websites naturally reflect terminology introduced at that stage, even though the concepts behind 1540:

Just in passing, there would be no edit war if either of you just stop. No point in blaming each other. It might help if one restore an old version in which there was no edit dispute and seek consensus through discussion. (That worked in a dispute between me and still,

1476:

by explaining to him ideas which you understand but which are beyond him because of his being one of "those who lack in-depth mathematical knowledge". What a pity that nobody thought to teach him some elementary mathematics before he started his career. Hmm. Or...

1089:

About Jordan curve theorem: This is not a good example, as it involves the concept of "continuous curve" which cannot be defined in terms of pure Euclidean geometry. I do not imagine a way to define continuous curves without using coordinates, at least

1969:

For your information, in mathematics, definitions are bi-directional. The terms "coordinate line," "number axis," and simply "axis" refer to the same thing. In your statement, you are not defining the cow. You are merely saying where the cows are.

2083:

why don't you come back when you have (a) some sources which actually support your claim, and also (b) a more collaborative attitude, with some willingness to listen and learn from other people? In the mean time, please stop with the edit warring.

1646:. It would be logically supportable based on an n-dimensional definition, albeit trivial, to call a number line its own axis. But this is unnecessary to make explicit, and essentially nobody ever describes it that way in practice. 1544:

The difference of "number line" and "axis" is similar to that of a set and a subset. Any subset is a set and a set is always a subset (e.g. of itself). But are they the same? But anyway, you two should clarify why this matters.

1158:

for trying to impose the idea that "number line" is a synonymous of "axis". It is true that the axes of a coordinate system are number lines, but this does not mean that the words are synonyms. Otherwise, this would be said in

643:"analytic geometry is much too restrictive, as it may prevent people interested in computational geometry, physics, mechanics, astronomy, etc. to read this article (all know geometry, but many may not know analytic geometry." 890:

The user is evidently not just initiating the edit warring but also is actively engaged in sabotaging the article and preventing further improvement to the article. He should be blocked from editing mathematical related

422:

By " is more the name of courses in colleges, than that of a specific area of geometry", I meant that, nowadays, the phrase "analytic geometry" is rarely used outside college studies. In fact, it has been proved (See

880: 2330:

Just chiming in to concur that Persianwise has not convinced me. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All axes may be number lines, but it does not follow that all number lines are axes.

368:

However, not just analytic geometry is the name of a course. Algebra, calculus, topology, complex analysis, and almost every other mathematical subject are also the names of courses, and this has always been the

712:

When we say that a branch or field of science introduced (or uses) some concept, it implicitly states that someone (a mathematician, scientist, etc.) invented that thing by introducing (or using) that concept.

1819:

Don't you realize that "coordinate axis" is another name for "number axis" or just "axis". All these terms that you think are different objects, are actually the same thing. They are mathematically synonyms.

1408:

which was contradictory to my assertion, and to mathematical facts. When ambiguity arises, why not explain things further to make things precise to get rid of ambiguity? Isn’t that the right thing to do?”

1915:

These are the same two sources we have been discussing, which I directly quoted above; neither one of them says that that "axis" is a synonym for "number line". (Aside, neither one of these seems like a

1629:"The rectangular coordinate system consists of two real number lines that intersect at a right angle. The horizontal number line is called the x-axis, and the vertical number line is called the y-axis." 1025:

closed curve partitions the whole plane into two parts. This looks trivial (despite its lengthy complicated proof), but it yields nontrival conclusions when it's applied to some crazy curves like the

1386:

Oh, Christ. if you are going to say things and then say you meant something completely different than what any reasonable person would have thought you meant, then I may as well give up even trying.

300: 1719:

know what you mean by "used in mathematics", but in a quick literature search (using Google scholar) I can't find any example of the term "axis" being defined to mean the same as "number line". –

1298:, on a piece of paper. You will notice that a number-line is exactly a one-dimensional coordinate system because the axis in the one-dimensional coordinate system coincides with the number-line. 918:

before thinking about that. It is very common for disagreements to occur at Knowledge (XXG) and participants must follow standard procedures to avoid sanctions. Handling disputes is covered at

2406: 857:

Cartesian coordinates are named for René Descartes, whose invention of them in the 17th century revolutionized mathematics by allowing the expression of every problem of geometry in terms of

1260:

I don't see the logic of what you say. A cat is an animal, but "cat" and "animal" are not the same thing. There is no contradiction there; nor is there any contradiction in what you quote

2040:

Hmm, how about a "set" and a "subset"? Every subset of a set is a set, and every set is a subset of some other (e.g., of itself). Does that make sets and subsets the same thing for you?

1595:

Additionally, you stated that "axis is defined to mean the principal lines through the origin". It does not mathematically make sense as "principal lines" are not defined in mathematics.

1111:, the Jordan curve theorem was not at all intended to be a good example, or even an example. It was to illustrate how an assumption can be unnecessarily strong with the word "every". 1447:. Anyone can see how to visualize why a number line and an axis (in a coordinate system) coincide, both representing the real number system. If you cannot see it, it is then 1082:, because it is known by a wider audience. However "analysis" would be a proper term since, AFAIK, it denoted initially Descartes's method of coordinates and led to the term 777:

if necessary. I will watch this page for a while. Feel free to ping me or any administrator if the article is ready to be unprotected due to consensus here (remembering that

44: 2396: 131: 1167:

be supported by a reliable source (in this case of elementary mathematics, a widely used textbook). Otherwise, it is forbidden to add the assertion, per the policy

522:

In the same paragraph, it is stated: ‘A line with a chosen Cartesian system is called a number line.’ It should be clarified that any coordinate system, including

184: 2411: 2162:" are synonyms, I encourage you to review the reputable secondary school resources I cited, or relevant mathematical literature that clarifies their equivalence. 976:

I find both first and second versions acceptable, but the third... It's too strong to assume that "every" problem of geometry is reduced to algebra and calculus.

1862: 1616: 79: 2391: 1880: 1620: 379:

Furthermore, Knowledge (XXG) articles are written for all audiences, not just for physics students, and should be as accurate as possible for all readers.

2421: 1768:

just don't think this article benefits in any way from making this (rather pedantic) point. It's also not at all the same as claiming that the two terms

290: 127: 2231:

I have bothered to give you a mathematical content and yet expecting an answer from you. Why are sets and subsets different concept with your logic?

1933:

If someone lacks basic mathematical understanding, it's advisable for them to consult relevant expertise before editing articles in that field. It's

266: 442:

of algebra in geometry (or, more precisely, the use of real numbers and their properties). So analytic geometry is definitively a part of geometry.

85: 2401: 1566:

coordinate axis of a Cartesian plane is a number line, which is not at all the same thing as saying that "axis" and "number line" are synonyms.) –

926:

mention other editors or their alleged shortcomings on this page. If you want independent opinions on the accuracy of what I have written, ask at

809:

Cartesian coordinates are named for René Descartes, whose invention of them in the 17th century revolutionized mathematics by providing the first

488:

Axes are number lines. Are you familiar with the x-axis and y-axis? These are number lines that are denoted by the letters x and y, respectively.

1345:. It is obvious that the structure of a number-line defined by the same operations of addition and multiplication makes the two isomorphic - See 1029:. This is how the word "every" is powerful. Even for classical Euclidean geometry, there was a famous (meta-)problem asking whether there is a 2416: 2076:

I think these distinctions are a bit beyond the level of conversation we're engaged in here. Overall, this thread seems like a waste of time.

577:

Every axis is a number line but not every number line is an axis; the two are not synonyms, and your edit incorrectly proposed that they are.

1093:

Nevertheless, I agree with the removal of "every", which would require either a source or an accurate definition of "algebra and calculus".

586: 555:

You have not provided any reliable source that uses "axis" to refer to a numbeer line. So, your edit is a personal opinion. This is called

30: 257: 218: 438:

It is not accurate to say that analytic geometry "combines" geometry and algebra. The correct statement is that analytic geometry is the

1303:

there is a bijection between the set of all points on the number-line and the set of all points on the axis; hence, they are the same.

1352:

Analogously, the same thing can be said about the axis (more precisely, the set of points on the axis, with the familiar operations).

1291:

This mathematical fact is even visually evident if you draw a number-line and a coordinate system in one dimension, both on the same

99: 1987:– This is not correct, but this is not really the place to argue about it. Perhaps take it up on a forum about logic or philosophy. 687:

Please, stop using accusations ("fallacy" and "insufficient mathematical knowledge") for trying to support your personal views. Use

104: 20: 2366: 1497:"Otherwise, where do you think the axis and the number line are located relative to the aforementioned geometric straight line?” 1456:“Otherwise, where do you think the axis and the number line are located relative to the aforementioned geometric straight line?” 74: 2386: 2249:

Your question, even if assumed to be correctly stated, is irrelevant to the issue caused by the edit war initially started by

1835: 828:

Cartesian coordinates are named for René Descartes, whose invention of them in the 17th century revolutionized mathematics by

193: 2024:"Number axis" is not a common term in English. A search turns up mostly results from Russian or Chinese sources, for example 1308:

Otherwise, where do you think the axis and the number-line are located relative to the aforementioned geometric straight line

507:

By the way, I'll revert the other edits of the same user for reasons given in the preceding thread and in my edit summaies.

556: 65: 769:

I have fully protected the article for a short period so the edit warring can be resolved on this talk page. Please review

2286:

That depends on what you mean by "the same"; you are free to define it whatever you like, but they don't apply to others.

680:

was coined. Moreover, it is not geometries but geometers that uses coordinates systems. This is documented in the article

688: 496:

After that, I tried to get a compromise, but I was reverted again. Thinking about that, I got convinced that the use of

365:

You have stated: "... nowadays, it is more the name of courses in colleges, than that of a specific area of geometry."

1241: 2176:

You were previously blocked over this. Coming back months later to restart the same issue is not a good idea. Time to

1834:

Please stop to repeat again and again the same assertions without any source or argument for supporting them. This is

797: 501: 24: 722:

Analytic geometry cannot exist without a coordinate system, which paved the way for using algebra alongside geometry.

1278:

Your use of analogy is not valid here. The fact that "not all animals are cats" is because the set of all cats is a

435:, in the sense that every theorem of synthetic geometry can be proved by means of analytic geometry, and vice-versa. 1957:"Each cow in the barn is a farm animal" does not mean that "cow" and "farm animal" mean precisely the same thing. – 383:

That's why "geometry" should be changed to "analytic geometry" in order to start the article with correct phrasing.

139: 122: 1658:

first started getting applied to the lines in a rectangular coordinate system with one coordinate equal to zero. –

424: 109: 2336: 1635:, respectively. These sources are saying that, in the context of the Cartesian plane, each axis is a number line. 2177: 1231: 1175: 741:" This is because coordinate systems are used analytic geometry, but they are not used in all types of geometry. 654: 150: 2059: 590: 199: 1638:

Neither of these sources makes any claim that a one-dimensional line is, per se, an "axis", or that the term

1589:

that "neither of these sources supports this claim". You are wrong! Please read both of the cited references.

2025: 1856: 1586: 2062:

objects? Is it acceptable to you to say that a group and a non-group (e.g., a groupoid) might be the same?

915: 778: 719:. (Geometry, by itself, was known for many thousands of years before the invention of analytic geometry.) 55: 2321: 2291: 2277: 2236: 2222: 2167: 2145: 2101: 2067: 2045: 2015: 1975: 1942: 1906: 1825: 1744: 1602: 1550: 1515: 1463: 1414: 1377: 1363: 1317: 1251: 1116: 1079: 1038: 981: 901: 752: 662: 653:

He has been warned before on his talk page, and he is hereby warned again to cease any attempts to make

546: 389: 340: 265:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1155: 927: 243: 70: 2332: 1372:

NOTE: By “This is contradictory”, I meant “This is contradictory (and not to the first statement).

1018: 805:, due to lack of sufficient mathematical knowledge, is haphazardly changing sentences and publishing: 170: 2088: 2032: 1999: 1961: 1925: 1784: 1723: 1662: 1580: 1570: 1342: 1030: 910:

The talk page of an article is not the correct place to discuss other editors. The correct page is

1843: 1758: 1701:) are restarting the same edit-war. Even school pupils know that these terms are interchangeable. 1433: 1349:. To mathematicians, two isomorphic fields (or any other relevant structures) are the same thing. 1183: 1098: 947: 844: 786: 696: 568: 512: 451: 428: 407: 356: 249: 155: 1287:

the set of all number-lines and the set of all one-dimensional coordinate systems are identical.

233: 212: 998:

in real algebra and calculus That is what was said in the quoted passage, which refers to "the

1493:

Your response is not pertinent to a mathematical discussion. He was asked this question twice:

1083: 673: 432: 51: 715:

For example, the invention of analytic geometry is generally credited to René Descartes, who

684:, where coordinates systems and analytic geometry are clearly mentioned as parts of geometry. 2317: 2287: 2273: 2246: 2232: 2218: 2206: 2184: 2163: 2141: 2097: 2080: 2063: 2041: 2011: 1971: 1938: 1902: 1821: 1740: 1715: 1706: 1598: 1546: 1511: 1459: 1410: 1373: 1359: 1313: 1247: 1112: 1048: 1034: 992: 977: 897: 748: 658: 542: 475: 385: 336: 152: 911: 774: 560: 372:

Your other statements are subjective, chaotic, and do not aim to make the article accurate.

2361: 1917: 1624: 1592:

You also stated that bold text are distractions. They are not. Bold text is for emphasis.

1445:

I suggest you read the topic on this page that I posted at 18:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

1168: 939: 919: 770: 2371: 2340: 2325: 2295: 2281: 2240: 2226: 2188: 2171: 2149: 2105: 2091: 2071: 2049: 2035: 2019: 2002: 1979: 1964: 1946: 1928: 1910: 1847: 1829: 1787: 1762: 1748: 1726: 1709: 1665: 1606: 1573: 1554: 1519: 1486: 1467: 1437: 1418: 1395: 1381: 1367: 1336: 1321: 1273: 1255: 1187: 1120: 1102: 1073: 1042: 1012: 985: 971: 951: 905: 790: 756: 700: 666: 594: 572: 550: 516: 455: 411: 393: 360: 344: 2258: 2085: 2029: 1996: 1958: 1922: 1781: 1720: 1698: 1659: 1567: 1355:

So all three are isomorphic, there are no differences between them, except the naming.

154: 2380: 2250: 2198: 2055: 1839: 1754: 1678: 1482: 1473: 1429: 1391: 1332: 1269: 1261: 1179: 1108: 1094: 1069: 1052: 1026: 1017:

I think you made a fair point. Instead of a boring argument, I'd like to mention the

1008: 967: 943: 802: 782: 692: 637: 564: 508: 447: 403: 352: 1803:"It does not need to be restated that a number line can be considered its own axis." 1201:

are equivalent concepts. They are often used interchangeably and can be regarded as

1934: 884: 773:

and seek assistance at a relevant wikiproject. If necessary, and per WP:DR, use an

2010:

Number lines are by definition are number axes. And number axes are number lines.

657:

and to stop introducing inaccuracies due to insufficient mathematical knowledge.

2194: 2180: 1346: 1160: 262: 484:

Notoce: "axis" is a term that is commonly used for a number line in mathematics

1995:

farm animal is a cow? (And also not a definition of "cow" or "farm animal".) –

239: 2026:"Approximate solution of hypersingular integral equations on the number axis" 1733:

From your statement that "the horizontal number line is called the x-axis,"

747:. In fact, precision is often necessary for clear and accurate description. 672:

It is not analytic geometry that introduced coordinates systems, but it is

1163:. In any case, Knowledge (XXG) rule are that any new assertion like yours 895:

More information regarding his other unwarranted reversions will be given.

2254: 2202: 1682: 1478: 1387: 1328: 1265: 1065: 1004: 963: 681: 1341:

For clarification, it should be noted that the set of real numbers is a

717:

combined algebra and geometry by using the concept of coordinate systems

626:

use Coordinate Systems. Therefore, it would be more accurate to change ‘

2140:

dispel any potential confusion and enhance the reader's understanding.

1174:

Please, remember also that edit warring may lead to an edit block (see

706: 647: 2028:(in Russian, where "number axis" is translated from "числовой оси"). – 1240:. If you continue to engage in this behavior, I will report you as a 585:

technical way of conveying the point, so is likely worth preserving.

431:(the geometry defined by geometric axioms) is strictly equivalent to 1697:) are the same. These are the terminology used in mathematics. You ( 1217:“It is true that the axes of a coordinate system are number lines.” 2127:

is a term used in elementary mathematics with the same meaning as

1685:, were already terminated by correctly asserting that the terms " 1623:, neither of which has obvious authorship or really seems like a 1504:

Can you supply an answer to the aforementioned question yourself?

873:

This is wrong because calculus was not even invented at that time

500:

for a number line is very uncommon. So, I'll revert the section

603:

It is "Analytic Geometry" that Introduced "Coordinate Systems".

480:

Axes and number lines are two different sorts of specific lines

2197:

Your statement lacks mathematical content. Do you concur with

646:

is subjective and lacks meaningful content. It is, in fact, a

164: 156: 15: 1814:"each coordinate axis of a Cartesian plane is a number line". 745:

Unlike what you said previously, precision is not restriction

1236:, as you have repeatedly reverted my correct assertion that 610:

is the branch of mathematics that introduced the concept of

559:

in Knowledge (XXG), and not allowed in articles per policy

504:

to the old version where the word "axis" did not appear.

1874:... The horizontal number line is called the x -axis, ... 1507:

One does not even have to be a mathematician to answer it.

1059:

every problem in geometry to algebra and calculus, but to

1736:

it logically follows that a number line is indeed an axis

843:

The explanation for this was presented on his talk page:

1055:(but I haven't checked that attribution) refers not to 581: 490:

Please stop preventing the article from being improved.

482:. In turn, he reverted my revert with the edit summary 471: 1107:

I also agree with the removal of "every". By the way @

2407:

Knowledge (XXG) level-4 vital articles in Mathematics

2054:

If isomorphic objects (some of which might be, e.g.,

1808:

You statement does not mathematically make any sense.

1406:‘A number line and an axis are two different things.’ 1223:"A number line and an axis are two different things." 261:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2007:

In mathematics, ALL definitions are bi-directional.

1677:The edit wars mentioned below, which initiated by 881:

Analytic gemetry invented by René Descartes in 1637

1989:"In your statement, you are not defining the cow." 1895:The horizontal number line is called the x -axis, 1209:they are not considered synonyms in the dictionary 1086:, before becoming an alternative name of calculus. 320:Cartesian coordinate system and analytic geometry 1985:"in mathematics, definitions are bi-directional" 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1838:, and this is not accepted in Knowledge (XXG). 1220:However, on your own talk page, you stated that 1078:About "calculus": I used "calculus" instead of 1402:‘a number line and an axis are the same thing’ 634:’, as this is what analytic geometry entails. 2397:Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in Mathematics 8: 1451:to answer the question that was asked there: 1238:a number line and an axis are the same thing 825:The correct and precise statement should be: 930:. The point is that editors must focus on 883:] , but Calculaus was invented in 1665 by 207: 1627:by Knowledge (XXG) standards) claim that 1621:"Lesson 28" by Curriculum Associates, LLC 2154:If you disagree with my assertion that " 2096:I agree; can't believe this goes again. 275:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Mathematics 209: 168: 2392:Knowledge (XXG) level-4 vital articles 1988: 1984: 1632: 1628: 1615:To elaborate a bit, these sources (an 725:Therefore, it is more precise to say " 535:DO not make any unwarranted revertions 487: 483: 479: 2412:B-Class vital articles in Mathematics 796:It should be mentioned that the page 7: 1863:"3.1: Rectangular Coordinate System" 1780:a defensible claim in my opinion). – 1501:and you know he failed to answer it. 1230:. Your actions evidently constitute 739:, a Cartesian coordinate system .... 255:This article is within the scope of 731:, a Cartesian coordinate system ... 23:for discussing improvements to the 14: 2422:Top-priority mathematics articles 1881:"Understand the Coordinate Plane" 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 1142: 325: 278:Template:WikiProject Mathematics 242: 232: 211: 178: 169: 138: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 1047:OK, prompted by your comments, 295:This article has been rated as 2402:B-Class level-4 vital articles 1555:20:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC) 1520:20:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC) 1487:13:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 1468:22:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 1438:22:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 1419:22:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 1404:, but the other user had said 1400:“If you noticed, I had stated 1396:21:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 1382:21:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 1368:20:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 1337:19:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 1322:18:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 1285:However, my assertion is that 1274:15:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 1121:10:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC) 1103:09:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC) 1074:21:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 1043:20:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 1013:17:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 986:08:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 972:20:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC) 952:04:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC) 906:17:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC) 791:09:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC) 757:00:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC) 701:11:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) 676:, a long time before the term 667:22:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC) 595:13:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC) 573:11:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC) 551:23:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC) 198:It is of interest to multiple 1: 851:But then he replaced it with: 517:14:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC) 456:17:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC) 402:End of the moved discussion. 269:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 2417:B-Class mathematics articles 1710:21:33, 8 January 2024‎ (UTC) 1357:They are all the same thing! 524:Cartesian coordinate systems 2372:17:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2341:17:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2326:15:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2296:10:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2282:08:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2241:02:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2227:02:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2189:02:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2172:02:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2150:01:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2106:00:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2092:00:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2072:00:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2058:) are the same, what about 2050:00:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC) 2036:23:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 2020:23:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 2003:23:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 1980:23:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 1965:22:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 1947:23:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 1929:23:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 1911:23:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 1848:22:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 1830:21:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 1788:22:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 1763:22:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 1749:22:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 1727:21:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 1666:17:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 1607:17:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 1574:16:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC) 1561:End of the moved discussion 1256:21:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC) 1188:18:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC) 1147:Moved from Talk:Persianwise 1137:Cartesian coordinate system 798:Cartesian coordinate system 582:D.Lazard's most recent edit 412:11:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC) 394:13:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC) 361:10:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC) 345:10:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC) 25:Cartesian coordinate system 2438: 1282:of the set of all animals. 1140: 323: 1579:(comment moved here from 1204:mathematically synonymous 294: 227: 206: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2217:" are distinct objects? 2060:categorically equivalent 1776:mean the same (which is 1472:How kind of you to help 620:non-Euclidean Geometries 478:, with the edit summary 330:Moved from Talk:D.Lazard 301:project's priority scale 2360:thinly-veiled insults. 2261:. Please stay on topic. 1857:Special:diff/1178434751 258:WikiProject Mathematics 2387:B-Class vital articles 2316:. Any other question? 2272:" are the same thing? 2264:Do you disagree that " 2257:and then restarted by 1226:This is contradictory 709:by playing with words. 705:You are again using a 655:unwarranted reversions 75:avoid personal attacks 1836:WP:Disruptive editing 1617:"Anonymous LibreText" 1510:What is your answer? 1228:to mathematical facts 580:Almost every part of 466:Axes and number lines 425:Cantor–Dedekind axiom 192:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 185:level-4 vital article 132:Auto-archiving period 100:Neutral point of view 1154:You are starting an 1019:Jordan curve theorem 622:, by themselves, do 557:WP:original research 281:mathematics articles 105:No original research 2209:in asserting that " 1581:user talk:jacobolus 1031:hyperbolic geometry 914:but please examine 781:is not unanimity). 689:WP:reliable sources 541:Persianwise (talk) 1193:In mathematics, a 1021:, which says that 845:User_talk:D.Lazard 612:Coordinate Systems 429:synthetic geometry 250:Mathematics portal 194:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 1918:"reliable source" 1625:"reliable source" 1562: 1084:Analytic geometry 729:analytic geometry 678:analytic geometry 632:analytic geometry 608:Analytic Geometry 502:§ One dimensional 498:(coordinate) axis 433:analytic geometry 414: 315: 314: 311: 310: 307: 306: 163: 162: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2429: 2304:two. Obviously, 1897: 1892: 1890: 1885: 1876: 1871: 1869: 1703: 1674: 1649:Aside: The word 1642:is a synonym of 1560: 1146: 1145: 996: 401: 329: 328: 283: 282: 279: 276: 273: 252: 247: 246: 236: 229: 228: 223: 215: 208: 191: 182: 181: 174: 173: 165: 157: 143: 142: 133: 95:Article policies 16: 2437: 2436: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2377: 2376: 2369: 2333:EducatedRedneck 2178:WP:DROPTHESTICK 1888: 1886: 1883: 1879: 1867: 1865: 1861: 1738: 1702: 1675: 1673: 1670: 1457: 1311: 1243:Disruptive user 1214:You stated that 1176:WP:Edit warring 1149: 1148: 1143: 1139: 990: 874: 811:systematic link 767: 605: 538: 468: 332: 331: 326: 322: 280: 277: 274: 271: 270: 248: 241: 221: 189: 179: 159: 158: 153: 130: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2435: 2433: 2425: 2424: 2419: 2414: 2409: 2404: 2399: 2394: 2389: 2379: 2378: 2375: 2374: 2365: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2262: 2259:user:jacobolus 2152: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2077: 2052: 2038: 2008: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1877: 1854: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1809: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1734: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1704: 1699:user:Jacobolus 1676: 1671: 1647: 1636: 1610: 1609: 1596: 1593: 1590: 1584: 1558: 1557: 1542: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1508: 1505: 1502: 1499: 1494: 1470: 1455: 1452: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1353: 1350: 1309: 1305: 1299: 1289: 1283: 1224: 1221: 1218: 1215: 1212: 1151: 1141: 1138: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1105: 1091: 1087: 974: 957: 956: 955: 954: 892: 888: 877: 872: 869: 854: 852: 849: 840: 826: 823: 806: 766: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 742: 723: 720: 713: 710: 691:, if you can. 685: 674:René Descartes 604: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 587:100.36.106.199 578: 575: 539: 533: 531: 467: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 443: 436: 399: 398: 397: 396: 380: 377: 373: 370: 366: 324: 321: 318: 313: 312: 309: 308: 305: 304: 293: 287: 286: 284: 267:the discussion 254: 253: 237: 225: 224: 216: 204: 203: 197: 175: 161: 160: 151: 149: 148: 145: 144: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2434: 2423: 2420: 2418: 2415: 2413: 2410: 2408: 2405: 2403: 2400: 2398: 2395: 2393: 2390: 2388: 2385: 2384: 2382: 2373: 2368: 2363: 2358: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2251:user:D.Lazard 2248: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2199:user:D.Lazard 2196: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2179: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2123: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2090: 2087: 2082: 2078: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2037: 2034: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2001: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1963: 1960: 1956: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1927: 1924: 1919: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1901: 1896: 1882: 1878: 1875: 1864: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1818: 1813: 1812: 1810: 1807: 1802: 1801: 1799: 1789: 1786: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1746: 1742: 1737: 1732: 1728: 1725: 1722: 1717: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1708: 1705: 1700: 1696: 1693:" (or simply 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1679:user:D.Lazard 1669: 1668: 1667: 1664: 1661: 1657: 1652: 1648: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1597: 1594: 1591: 1588: 1585: 1582: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1572: 1569: 1563: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1543: 1539: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1506: 1503: 1500: 1498: 1495: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1475: 1474:Daniel Lazard 1471: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1458: 1453: 1450: 1446: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1426: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1358: 1354: 1351: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1312: 1306: 1304: 1300: 1297: 1296:straight line 1294: 1290: 1288: 1284: 1281: 1280:proper subset 1277: 1276: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1244: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1229: 1225: 1222: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1206: 1205: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1172: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1157: 1152: 1136: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1027:Hilbert curve 1024: 1020: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1001: 994: 989: 988: 987: 983: 979: 975: 973: 969: 965: 961: 960: 959: 958: 953: 949: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 908: 907: 903: 899: 896: 893: 889: 886: 882: 878: 875: 870: 868: 865: 862: 860: 855: 853: 850: 848: 846: 841: 838: 834: 831: 827: 824: 822: 820: 816: 812: 807: 804: 799: 795: 794: 793: 792: 788: 784: 780: 776: 772: 764: 758: 754: 750: 746: 743: 740: 738: 732: 730: 724: 721: 718: 714: 711: 708: 704: 703: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 683: 679: 675: 671: 670: 669: 668: 664: 660: 656: 651: 649: 644: 641: 639: 635: 633: 629: 625: 621: 617: 613: 609: 602: 596: 592: 588: 583: 579: 576: 574: 570: 566: 562: 558: 554: 553: 552: 548: 544: 540: 536: 532: 529: 525: 521: 520: 519: 518: 514: 510: 505: 503: 499: 494: 492: 491: 486:, and posted 485: 481: 477: 473: 465: 457: 453: 449: 444: 441: 437: 434: 430: 426: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 413: 409: 405: 395: 391: 387: 384: 381: 378: 374: 371: 367: 364: 363: 362: 358: 354: 349: 348: 347: 346: 342: 338: 319: 317: 302: 298: 292: 289: 288: 285: 268: 264: 260: 259: 251: 245: 240: 238: 235: 231: 230: 226: 220: 217: 214: 210: 205: 201: 195: 187: 186: 176: 172: 167: 166: 147: 146: 141: 137: 129: 126: 124: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2313: 2309: 2306:number lines 2305: 2301: 2269: 2265: 2214: 2210: 2159: 2155: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 1992: 1935:Common_sense 1894: 1887:. Retrieved 1873: 1866:. Retrieved 1777: 1773: 1769: 1735: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1655: 1650: 1643: 1639: 1564: 1559: 1496: 1454: 1448: 1444: 1405: 1401: 1356: 1307: 1302: 1295: 1292: 1286: 1279: 1242: 1237: 1233:Edit warring 1232: 1227: 1208: 1203: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1173: 1164: 1153: 1150: 1060: 1056: 1022: 999: 936:contributors 935: 931: 923: 916:WP:BOOMERANG 894: 885:Isaac Newton 871: 866: 863: 858: 856: 842: 836: 832: 829: 818: 814: 810: 808: 779:WP:CONSENSUS 768: 744: 736: 734: 728: 726: 716: 677: 652: 645: 642: 640:'s comment: 636: 631: 627: 623: 619: 615: 611: 607: 606: 534: 527: 523: 506: 497: 495: 493:on my talk. 489: 469: 439: 400: 382: 333: 316: 297:Top-priority 296: 256: 222:Top‑priority 200:WikiProjects 183: 135: 121: 94: 19:This is the 2318:Persianwise 2312:; they are 2310:number axes 2300:1+1 is the 2274:Persianwise 2270:number axis 2266:number line 2219:Persianwise 2215:number axis 2211:number line 2195:User:Meters 2164:Persianwise 2160:number axis 2156:number line 2142:Persianwise 2137:number axis 2133:number line 2129:number line 2125:Number axis 2081:Persianwise 2012:Persianwise 1972:Persianwise 1939:Persianwise 1903:Persianwise 1822:Persianwise 1770:number line 1741:Persianwise 1716:Persianwise 1707:Persianwise 1691:number axis 1687:number line 1644:number line 1599:Persianwise 1512:Persianwise 1460:Persianwise 1443:knowledge. 1411:Persianwise 1374:Persianwise 1360:Persianwise 1347:Isomorphism 1314:Persianwise 1264:as saying. 1248:Persianwise 1195:number line 1161:number line 1156:WP:edit war 1090:implicitly. 928:WP:Teahouse 898:Persianwise 749:Persianwise 659:Persianwise 543:Persianwise 476:Persianwise 470:I reverted 427:) that the 386:Persianwise 337:Persianwise 272:Mathematics 263:mathematics 219:Mathematics 31:not a forum 2381:Categories 2362:Ivanvector 1811:You said: 1800:You said: 1587:You stated 1541:D.Lazard.) 1061:expressing 1000:expression 2086:jacobolus 2030:jacobolus 1997:jacobolus 1959:jacobolus 1923:jacobolus 1889:3 October 1868:3 October 1782:jacobolus 1721:jacobolus 1660:jacobolus 1568:jacobolus 1293:geometric 830:combining 765:Protected 616:Euclidean 472:this edit 188:is rated 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2314:the same 2255:user:JBW 2203:user:JBW 2056:disjoint 1840:D.Lazard 1755:D.Lazard 1683:user:JBW 1430:D.Lazard 1262:D.Lazard 1180:D.Lazard 1109:D.Lazard 1095:D.Lazard 1080:analysis 1057:reducing 1053:D.Lazard 944:Johnuniq 864:calculus 837:geometry 815:geometry 813:between 803:D.Lazard 783:Johnuniq 737:geometry 733:" than " 693:D.Lazard 682:Geometry 638:D.Lazard 628:geometry 565:D.Lazard 509:D.Lazard 448:D.Lazard 404:D.Lazard 353:D.Lazard 136:365 days 123:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2302:same as 2268:" and " 2247:user:慈居 2213:" and " 2207:user:慈居 2158:" and " 1689:" and " 1449:crucial 1197:and an 934:not on 932:content 859:algebra 833:algebra 819:algebra 707:fallacy 648:fallacy 526:, have 299:on the 190:B-class 2253:, and 2205:, and 2181:Meters 1207:, but 912:WP:ANI 891:pages. 775:WP:RFC 630:’ to ‘ 561:WP:NOR 196:scale. 2367:Edits 1993:every 1884:(PDF) 1853:page. 1672:NOTE: 1343:Field 1169:WP:OR 1023:every 940:WP:DR 922:. Do 920:WP:DR 771:WP:DR 376:case. 369:case. 177:This 84:Seek 2337:talk 2322:talk 2308:are 2292:talk 2278:talk 2237:talk 2223:talk 2185:talk 2168:talk 2146:talk 2135:and 2102:talk 2068:talk 2046:talk 2016:talk 1976:talk 1943:talk 1907:talk 1891:2023 1870:2023 1844:talk 1826:talk 1774:axis 1772:and 1759:talk 1745:talk 1695:axis 1681:and 1656:axis 1651:axis 1640:axis 1631:and 1619:and 1603:talk 1551:talk 1516:talk 1483:talk 1464:talk 1434:talk 1415:talk 1392:talk 1378:talk 1364:talk 1333:talk 1318:talk 1301:So, 1270:talk 1252:talk 1199:axis 1184:talk 1165:must 1117:talk 1099:talk 1070:talk 1039:talk 1009:talk 982:talk 968:talk 948:talk 902:talk 861:and 835:and 817:and 787:talk 753:talk 697:talk 663:talk 591:talk 569:talk 547:talk 528:axes 513:talk 452:talk 408:talk 390:talk 357:talk 341:talk 73:and 2089:(t) 2033:(t) 2000:(t) 1962:(t) 1926:(t) 1785:(t) 1778:not 1724:(t) 1663:(t) 1571:(t) 1479:JBW 1388:JBW 1329:JBW 1266:JBW 1178:). 1066:JBW 1005:JBW 964:JBW 924:not 735:In 727:In 624:NOT 618:or 474:of 440:use 291:Top 2383:: 2370:) 2364:(/ 2339:) 2324:) 2294:) 2288:慈居 2280:) 2239:) 2233:慈居 2225:) 2201:, 2187:) 2170:) 2148:) 2104:) 2098:慈居 2070:) 2064:慈居 2048:) 2042:慈居 2018:) 1978:) 1945:) 1937:. 1909:) 1893:. 1872:. 1846:) 1828:) 1761:) 1747:) 1739:. 1605:) 1553:) 1547:慈居 1518:) 1485:) 1466:) 1436:) 1417:) 1394:) 1380:) 1366:) 1335:) 1320:) 1272:) 1254:) 1246:. 1186:) 1171:. 1119:) 1113:慈居 1101:) 1072:) 1049:慈居 1041:) 1035:慈居 1011:) 993:慈居 984:) 978:慈居 970:) 950:) 942:. 904:) 867:. 789:) 755:) 699:) 665:) 650:. 614:. 593:) 571:) 563:. 549:) 515:) 454:) 410:) 392:) 359:) 343:) 134:: 54:; 2335:( 2320:( 2290:( 2276:( 2245:@ 2235:( 2221:( 2193:@ 2183:( 2166:( 2144:( 2100:( 2084:– 2079:@ 2066:( 2044:( 2014:( 1974:( 1941:( 1921:– 1905:( 1842:( 1824:( 1757:( 1743:( 1714:@ 1601:( 1583:) 1549:( 1514:( 1481:( 1462:( 1432:( 1413:( 1390:( 1376:( 1362:( 1331:( 1316:( 1310:? 1268:( 1250:( 1211:. 1182:( 1115:( 1097:( 1068:( 1037:( 1007:( 995:: 991:@ 980:( 966:( 946:( 900:( 887:. 879:( 876:. 847:. 839:. 821:. 785:( 751:( 695:( 661:( 589:( 567:( 545:( 537:. 511:( 450:( 406:( 388:( 355:( 339:( 303:. 202:. 128:1 125:: 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index