784:. Actually It is a really good written article but the trouble is that the article is rather isolated from the rest of well-cultivated wikipedia articles. The stuff about binary represention is vital because the article should not be limited to that in math but that in general cases. Besides, in the future we might want to add portions for example history of concept of negative and positive. Actually I don't have much trouble to rename this to simple negative number but then what about positive number then? Are people suggesting split it off into two articles? Honestly I really don't like a current ugly title but I don't know a better one. Actually it is rather silly to discuss a lot about naming because unlike dictionaries, in encyclopedia articles, the article tends to be more general, thus, sometime the title also tends to be complex. For example,
226:
the evaluation of this expression not-a-number or impossible to evaluate, but the way it works is that with imaginary numbers, instead of even parity for signs, the signs are combined based on odd parity. Odd parity evaluates to negative when both signs are the same, the exact opposite of even parity. Odd parity versus even parity (which are calculated by XOR and XNOR) is the fundamental difference in sign combination rules between real and imaginary numbers. Sign combination rules are arbitrary and separate from the cardinal numbers in the operation. The sign amounts to a single binary digit as a second coordinate in a two dimensional phase space splitting the field into a complementary pair of 1 dimensional phase spaces in which the direction of addition is reversed. -10 - 10 is the same as -10 + - 10.
3271:
almost the same thing. Others throw out any square roots of negative numbers, and others discard any negative solutions. All these things are different and clearly happened at various times in history but when and who committed them? For example, Brahmagupta used negative numbers, but does that mean he allowed negative coefficients? And he allowed negative solutions, it says in this article, which is an interesting comment because it almost implies that he had found both solutions, but I thought that had to wait for
Bhaskara. I would like the article to sort this out. The quadratic equation is the most important historical use of the (non) use of negative numbers, so it represents a good focus.
5413:." The confusion in this is between the idea of "the opposite of a number" and "a number with an opposite value". If something is the opposite of a number, it is clearly not a number at all. A negative number is a number. It is a number whose value is the opposite of the value of a positive number, so when we add a negative and a positive number with the same absolute value, the sum is zero, the additive identity. It is absurd to say that the number that is negative is the "opposite of a number". The two numbers are opposites of each other, just as a left hand and a right hand are opposites of each other. To say that a left hand is the opposite of a hand would be absurd.
218:
consistency of these operations. One rule applies to both being positive, another rule when one is negative and the other positive, and a third rule if both are negative. The expression of sign as a binary vector matrix or compound value (like a coordinate space with a magnitude and a sign) is implied but for some reason not expressly stated. Also, it points to the fact that negative numbers are notional and time binding, that is, one can only practically demonstrate negative numbers either through reversal of the sequence of operations (see above where I illustrate the atomic subtraction operations implied in division) that is required when performing a division.
222:
parity of real numbers and odd parity of imaginary numbers in multiplication, division and exponents is about maintaining a consistent effect of the repeated addition of the factors. Odd parity in real numbers operations indicates an odd number of negative signs in the expanded atomic addition and subtraction that produces the multiplication/division/exponent, and gives you a negative result. Even parity gives you a positive result. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, sign is really a one bit coordinate indicating the direction to perform the operation (subtract or add) grouped with the number attached to it.
5381:"The division between the rural life of the villages, where the Egyptian language was spoken, and the metropolis, where the citizens spoke Koine Greek and frequented the Hellenistic gymnasia, was the most significant cultural division in Roman Egypt, and was not dissolved by the Constitutio Antoniniana of 212, which made all free Egyptians Roman citizens.There was considerable social mobility however, accompanying mass urbanization, and participation in the monetized economy and literacy in Greek by the peasant population was widespread."
210:
functions in discrete logic arithmetic logic units, the logic operator XNOR (the negation of XOR) is applied to the sign bits of the two numbers being operated upon, an operation also called even parity, the result stored in the sign bit register, both are converted to the positive sign (usually indicated by 1 for positive or 0 for negative on the last bit of the byte/word/longword, the sequence of additions or subtractions performed and the sign bit altered at the end as determined beforehand by the even parity operation on the sign.
106:
3800:
the number line is because
Descartes happened to write the positive numbers going to the right, and the opposite of right is left. The charge on the electron is negative because Ben Franklin happened to think electricity flowed in one direction, and the electrons actually flow in the opposite direction. When the electron was discovered by Thompson in 1897, more than a hundred years after Ben Franklin flew his kite, it was arbitrarily assigned a negative value just to make the commonly used equations work.
96:
75:
42:
4644:
never ever met anyone who had a problem understanding that "minus" can be a unary or a binary operator or even seeing a problem there, provided this person had at least some basic understanding of arithmetic. Then I started to watch YT math videos, and suddenly this phrase was everwhere. Can anyone tell me where it came from? It must have been "invented" by someone. (Probably an "education expert" who "discovered" it as a problem and forced it into (US?) schools…)
33:
3445:
the type of the account determining which does which. My own credit card statement lists reductions of the balance (such as refunds) with a "CR"; they are reductions in an asset of the bank. My checking statement lists refunds also as credits; they are increases in a liability of the bank. While I did slip up in my edit summary, the claim in the article is wrong.
1313:
Unfortunately, it is not written in
English but in German, which might be the reason for it seemingly not being very popular. Isabella G. Bashmakova is said to have shown it (i.e. that Diophantus knew negative numbers), too (though I haven't read her book, yet). It would be great, if anybody speaking english better than me amended the article in this respect.
1506:. The APL documentation as I remember flogged the raised sign as a wonderful thing invented by Iverson for APL, but in my opinion it was mainly used because the APL syntax needed a separate symbol in order to be able to parse its expressions (which are unusual). I've never seen the raised minus in any context not connected with APL (except this article).
5338:
operations being presented. The arithmetic descriptions are for readers who need basic description for basic operations as an introduction or as a refresher. Using powers and roots is a level beyond the basic operations, and is not appropriate for the article, especially since it raises even further complications such as complex numbers. ---
4662:
and less in K through 12 (some states require they be lied do -- it's the law here in
Tennessee, and I was lied to as long as I went to public schools. I had to go to a private school to lean the truth) I have to be careful to explain more and more basics. For example, I have to teach calculus students that 2/4 reduced to lowest terms is 1/2.
5360:"In Hellenistic Egypt, the Greek mathematician Diophantus in the 3rd century AD…" But the pages Hellenistic period and Ptolemaic Kingdom both agree that this period ends by 30 or 31 BC, three centuries before Diophantus. I am not enough of an historian and not sufficiently fluent in English to change this. Sorry to leave this to others. --
2873:"non-negative" is the opposite of "negative" The law of excluded middle does not exclude the other half of the scale, this is not just about zero, its also about all the positive numbers as well. This article seems to cover negative numbers, non-negative numbers, positive numbers, non-positive numbers, and zero. I suggest
610:. He has a point. It seems little weird the article negative number has a lot of mention about positive numbers. But the trouble we invented a concept positive number after invension of negative numbers. Without the concept of negative number, we don't have positive numbers. Then a compromise, how about
4661:
I, also, as an undergraduate, was able to figure out the difference between an unary minus and a binary minus. But I was never taught the difference. Most of my students were never taught the difference, and some can't figure it out, so I explain it to them. But, as students in the US are taught less
4377:
can also be confusing. Since this is in a section trying to be more formal, we should try to do better. The subsection is also problematic in that it invokes some axiom from some unnamed system of axioms (and, like me, you may have doubts that the statement is simply a reiteration of an axiom). To
4257:
be its negative." This naturally leads to confusion, since not every number has a "negative" which is negative. For example, if we say "negative negative ten", that describes positive ten, but students naturally get confused being told that the "negative" of a negative is positive. On the other hand,
4076:
This is a point often badly taught in grade school and still misunderstood by some college students. A negative number represents the opposite of a positive number. If, for example, +10 represents a ten dollar profit, then -10 represents a ten dollar loss. The reciprocal is not an opposite. 1/10 does
3711:
Looks like no opinions either way are forthcoming from that project. I take the position that (1) accounting sources are relevant to an example headed "Finance" that uses accounting terminology and (2) a subjective feeling that text is accurate contrary to sources is not a proper reason to keep it in
3567:
Again, the text in question makes a claim about how transactions are reported on an account statement. It's a claim about accounting. You can't just declare it accurate in some other imaginary domain. You've offered a source that says credits can be indicated by a minus sign, which is true (sometimes
3444:
But as for the claim of negative debits on a card: There is no such thing in accounting. The terminology and methods of accounting predate the acceptance of negative numbers. There are debits and credits, both positive. For any given account, one decreases the balance and the other increases it, with
2090:
I have an issue with the whole idea of proving -1^2 = 1. The formal construction section is much more correct I feel. Multiplication is extended to negative numbers in a straightforward and useful way. The result cannot be proved except as a result of the definition. At that rate we might as well say
1628:
I'm a graduate from an
American university and in my experience, "negative 5" is much more commonly used than "minus 5." At least, no mathematics professor I've ever had has ever used the term "minus" for anything but subtraction. Occasionally, a non-professional might use the term "minus" for that
1428:
Conduct of
Monetary Policy (pursuant to the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978,... by Finance, and Urban Affairs United States. Congress. House. Committee on Banking - 1980 - 199 pages. Page 157 - "... argue that in a noninflationary situation with lower interest rates it should not — we
1346:
If I Google "negative number" I get 2,470,000 hits, and all of them are coherently talking about negative numbers. If I Google "minus number" I get 53,100 hits. Even of those, I grow suspicious: out of the top 10 hits, only 4 are actually talking about negative numbers; another 4 are using "minus" as
205:
Explaining sign interactions in multiplication, division and exponential functions cannot be entirely illustrated by concrete examples. The resultant sign from multiplication when both are positive or one is positive and the other is negative can be illustrated so long as one uses the positive factor
4080:
An opposite is not the same as negative, as the writer above knows and says. If a number is positive, then the negative number with the same absolute value is its opposite. But just as the opposite of a positive number is a negative number, the opposite of a negative number is a positive number. And
3799:
In any case, Knowledge relies on standard sources, and the math books I teach out of define a negative number as an opposite. Knowledge of the number line seems to me slightly more advanced, known mainly to people who have taken some math in college. The reason the negative numbers go to the left on
3773:
To me, the idea of "less than" seems more primitive/intuitive than "opposite". Everyone knows (and has always known, it would seem to me) that one apple is less than two apples. And in fact if we want to know how much more three apples are than one, we take one apple away (i.e subtract) and see that
2482:
In some sense, what I am proposing is not very different from renaming this article to "Negative number", though I chose to frame the proposal as a split. The suggestion is to rename this article as well as relieve it from the burden of covering the general concept of sign. (Right now, part of the
2259:
The original text and the citation I moved said Euler for instance didn't understand the product rule and that it was later proved. The book said it was only understood intuitively. That was just nonsense. What I wrote may not be very sensible but shows the idea of proof is just silly. It seems with
2184:
is negative that would also be consistent with the rules for the multiplication for non-negative numbers. It is because we want the rules for negative numbers to be nicer than that that they are defined the way they are. It isn't a question of belief. It is a question of justifying a definition. The
2057:
The bit about Euler thinking negative numbers are greater than positive is probably from things like his -1 = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 ... where he played round with formulae. It's that sort of explorative thinking that led to much of modern mathematics. Having a projective rather than absolute infinity is the
1969:
It is just wrong. Euler for instance said - by - gave + just the same as + by + gave + and gave as reasoning that a single - by + gave -. And this idea of proof is a strange one too. It cannot be proved because it is a rule you are defining. It is perfectly easy to define funnymult where - funnymult
1803:
I don't think that should be done. The current title is a little clumsy, but does get closer to a clear statement of the subject. I'd prefer "Negative numbers" (or maybe "... number"); I presume this was previously used or at least discussed, and that the pedants won out and established the current
1545:
I agree with
Melchoir, the superscript notation is usefull in early education where "#--#" could easy confuse a person (I've found that "#-(-#)" doesn't help much). In many contexts, a shorter dash for negation verses subtraction is used (like on calculators). The superscript notation also serves to
1447:
Wow, I'm surprised to see that in a technology book published in 2000. Well, again on Google book search, "minus numbers" gets 139 pages while "negative numbers" gets 14000 pages; they're not even on the same level. The relative authority of the books that show up in those two search results is also
1025:
Finally, since this is something that people argue about a lot until they finally go find a mathematician who is subsequently annoyed at being asked again, it's a convention. Mathematicians tend not to feel strongly about which convention you use, though they do feel strongly about wasting a lot of
1006:
Now, it turns out that in such general cases, it usually turns out that there are many useful theorems about the "new" positive elements; sometimes there are useful theorems about the "new expanded" strictly positive elements, including or excluding the (1,0) case depending on which object you deal
768:
Though strage title, I think having a separate article about the concept of negative numbers in math or its representation does make sense. I don't think negative and positive is part of number. Breaking up the article to two articles doesn't make sense. Any article in wikipedia is an encyclopediac
4609:
Clearly, many people have strong opinions on this subject, but as a teacher, I find that using "opposite" for "additive inverse" and "reciprocal" for "multiplicative inverse" help students to understand mathematics. To give just one example, to teach the quadratic formula as "The opposite of b plus
4285:
opposite. A +$ 10 credit is the opposite of a –$ 10 debit: it restores the original balance. A reciprocal is another type of opposite. A ×2 doubling is the opposite of a ×½ halving: again, it restores the original value. Addition and multiplication implement "opposite" differently. Other, less
2072:
I'm fine with just removing the material under discussion until it's clarified. But I'll point out that it did not claim that Euler had any problem with complex numbers or negative numbers, only that he did not have a full explanation for why -1^2 = 1. For example, Argand diagrams (the plane model
1638:
That last comment is interesting. My experience is as a graduate student hearing lectures in theoretical physics at Oxford university in
England, and everyone here says "minus 5". The word negative would be used to say that the quantity x is negative, if it equals minus 5. On the other hand, we
1613:
In my experience (American), both "minus 5" and "negative 5" are common, with "minus" more frequent, I'd guess mainly because it is a syllable shorter. "Negative 5" makes perfect sense to me, essentially being the name of the number 5 units less than zero. While "negative" is essentially always a
225:
Thus -8 is the same as -1 x 8, and when you explain it this way you see that it is no more artificial and beyond the construct of simple addition or its temporal obverse, subtraction, than the √-1 radical of imaginary numbers. The rule in real numbers of using even parity on sign combinations makes
221:
Negative numbers relate to either one of two things in multiplication/division/exponents, either the repeated subtraction of a division operation or the repeated addition of negative numbers (or subtraction of positive numbers) of a multiplication involving one negative number. The rule about even
3839:
Paul August would be hard put to figure out how an electron's charge is supposedly less than that of a proton. Or, how a south pole is less than a north pole. He says let us take a partially ordered set (without saying wher the set came from). I say, let us take a commutative group. No "less than"
3633:
Your understanding is based on reading something into the source that it doesn't say. A credit is an adjustment that represents money a party owes to someone else (so in a bank-mediated refund, money is due from the refunder, and then the bank, to the customer). A minus sign is stated because it's
2021:
I agree with
Katzmik, this also seems quite bizarre to me. Parts of it are correct, Carnot did raise objections to negative numbers, and I have read places that Euler did not take the usual order on the numbers, putting negative numbers as larger than positive numbers. But I think he was adept at
1617:
With an unknown, "-x", the situation is different because the "-" in that context is always an operator, never part of the name of a number. Thus with a variable it is almost always "minus", never "negative". For "y - (-x)" one might use "minus" for both, or maybe "the negation of" for the second
1010:
In short, many mathematicians, including myself, think it is an unfair accident of history that "positive" excluded the zero case. It is also questionable etymologically (it is quite possible to put zero apples on a table. It's much harder with -1 apple, particularly if there aren't any on it to
462:
That's in two's complement. In one's complement, a negative number is represented as the complement of the value. Thus, the top bit is "1" if the value is negative. A weird thing about one's complement is that there are two representations for zero (all zeros and all ones). One's complement is
213:
When both signs are negative, as for the example -8 ÷ -2, one cannot perform an operation without performing first a common factor elimination (of -1) or negation of the numbers on both sides of the operator, such as -8 ÷ -2 = -1 x 8 ÷ -1 x 2, but again, deriving a positive sign via even parity or
4643:
I studied mathematics and physics in the 1980ies, when I started to read and speak
English in a scientific context, and worked in research until about 2010. I never ever met anyone at any confenrece or read any book or article that used the term "negative one" for -1 or "negative x" for -x. And I
3270:
I have been investigating negative numbers in quadratic equations for a school project and I just can't sort out the history. Some people don't allow negative coefficients, and that means you can't have a single method of solution. Others don't use negative numbers in the calculations, which is
3021:
I'm not sure that the "complement of A only exists because A exists" argument is grounds for "complement of A" to be a redirect to "A". Obviously each case can be judged on its merits, but in general I find the logical fallacy of redirecting to an opposite to be worse than any perceived gain. For
1277:
Diophantus's rejecting 20x+4=0 as a meaningful equation is cited as an evidence of knowledge of negative numbers in Greece. This is absurd, since it is a clear evidence to the contrary. It's like saying that somebody rejecting square root of negative numbers is an evidence that he knows imaginary
1226:
I don't want to impose my ideas and thus don't make changes since this might be controversal, and I risk to be too axiomatic: I would call nonnegative all elements that are not less than zero (in any group equipped with a partial order), so this is not always the same than "positive or zero"; and
1037:
As I see here some discussion has already been held about the topic of positivity of zero. One ting hasn't been mentioned yet, namely the fact that the current definition is inconsistent: "A positive number is a real number that is greater than zero, such as 2. Zero itself is neither positive nor
435:
Since wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I think it makes more sense one article talks about negativity of number. Currently the article is nothing more than a bunch of definitions and properties, but we certainly want to discuss when the concept of negative is introduced, notations and other stuff. I
5337:
Beyond language issues, the approach of the presentation is not easy enough, and this should not go in. Additionally, I don't think a section on powers and roots should be added to the article, as that is more advanced than appropriate for the fully-spelled-out type of explanation of arithmetic
3967:
It highlights a way mathematics can deal with decreases, by treating them as increases of negative amount. If a formula describes the effect of an increase by n, substituting −n into the same formula often describes a decrease by n correctly. Could that idea be expressed more clearly but still
3795:
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But you ask the average person on the street if anything is less than zero, and see what they say. On the other hand, ask them a few opposites: the opposite of left, the opposite of up, the opposite of addition, and my bet is every one will be able to
3731:
The essential definition of a negative number is that it represents an opposite. The problem with using "less than" to define negative is that it is a circular definition. The definition of "less than", in most books, is that a < b if and only if a - b is negative. We need some idea of what a
1661:
It looks to me that the "-" is as part of the number as the "5." You wouldn't normaly break up other symbol combinations (like 23 becoming "two three" instead of "twenty-three"), so why seperate the negative sign. Also, in many contexts, negative (negation) and minus (subtration) use a different
1599:
Thanks for the reply! Are there perhaps other opinions? How about "-5", is that also nearly always "minus 5"? When many of my students (being taught all over the World, and in many different languages, before I get them) say "negative 5" and "negative x", is that a primary school thing, or what?
1380:
if we assume that all the searches are lying to us: I've read mathematics books at all levels; I've read research articles written from all over the world; I've even read the literature for elementary school teachers. They all say "negative number", and more importantly, none of them says "minus
1297:
The short answer is yes, but the longer answer is long indeed. After all, what do you mean by "existence"? One construction of negative numbers is given by the "Formal construction of negative and non-negative integers" section of this article. If you want a thoughtful explanation of what it all
4605:
The correct technical term is "additive inverse", but the way negative numbers are used every day is to represent opposites: in finance and in temperature, to give just two common examples. In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the third definition of negative is "something that is the opposite or
4300:
Agree entirely. Negative numbers are not inherently "negative". They are just negations (opposites) of the numbers we chose to call positive. For example, the northern hemisphere has positive latitudes and the southern hemisphere has negative latitudes. It could well have been the other way. --
3638:
way of marking a credit, but it doesn't make the credit a "negative debit." Account statements are not a distinct field of knowledge. They are an application of accounting, and if you don't want me to talk about accounting, please suggest a subject and relevant sources that support the example.
1947:
I would be more concerned about exactly how Hankel proved it using complex numbers (maybe using polar form?). My guess is that the original author here meant to say that, before there were field-theoretic proofs that -1^2 = 1 and before there were concrete models of the negative numbers, it was
1549:
I was once taught to write my signs as superscript in primary school, and warned that I'll probably only see it as a normal minus sign because typewriters (remember those?) couldn't do superscript. I was reading this page because I was starting to question my own recollection. This page could
1366:
hits, and even then the very top item is an incomprehensible PDF technical sheet in all caps; below that is a subject-line of some student asking "dr. math", and further below we find such gems as "NBA Plus Minus numbers for the last 30 days!". On the next page there are three more "plus/minus"
4365:
usages have a much greater chance of being evoked. What is the opposite of something? Nothing. What is the opposite of a number? A letter, er... a shortage, er... a fraction, ... What is the opposite of zero? Nonzero. (Oops, that's a problem: in some contexts, the opposite of zero is not
2311:
I have fixed the part near the beginning where it says that in accounting negative numbers may be alternatively represented by placing them in parenthesis or writing them in red. An anonymous users, presumably not understanding the "alternative" part, added a sentence which said that negative
209:
In binary computation the multiply, divide and exponent operations are performed precisely as I show above, except instead of the reordering that I demonstrate in order to have a positive real number as the counter for the corresponding negative number to perform the calculation, integer math
1370:
I conclude that virtually no one says "minus numbers", including the British; that even in the rarity when they do use the phrase it's even odds on what they mean; and of that tiny minority who actually use it to mean "numbers less than zero", they're either double-talking pedagogues or just
2241:
It is true, I guess, one could say that because it isn't possible to use small blocks to visually represent multiplication of negative numbers, thus every fact about multiplication of negative numbers is up for grabs. But I think that's a pretty impoverished take on the role of intuition in
681:
I really don't see why this page exists at all. Initially it was about negative numbers. What was wrong with that?? Then it became negative and positive numbers, until someone pointed out that it was a bit silly that it excluded zero (ohh year that was me). Now it's about er .. what ? er...
217:
The fact that the rule for sign of the product of multiplication, division and exponents requires a second rule for the negative pair that is contrary to a simple and operation directly points at the fact that these operations on negative numbers are arbitrary and break from the fundamental
1312:
In fact, Diophantus knew about negative numbers (or better: quantities) and calculated with them, he just did not accept them as a (final) result, as he found a negative result as absurd or useless. This is very well shown in: "Negative Größen bei Diophant?" (2007) written by Klaus Barner.
189:
I get the point that the article is meant to be understood easily, but can't we just refer to things by their names? Using words like "dividend" and "divisor" (for division) or "factors" (for multiplication) makes much more sense to me than exhaustively mentioning "if you add a positive
206:
to give the cardinal value to the implied repeated addition or subtraction operation, or in other words, -5 x 2 = -5 + -5 = -10, or 10 ÷ -2 = 10 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 = 0 (the answer being contained in the number of the negative numbers required to get the result of zero for division).
3506:
This is not an article on accounting, but it makes an uncited claim in the context of accounting. So to explain my removal of the claim, I have to talk about accounting. There is no distinction between the accounting position of a bank and what it puts on its statement. The statement
3696:
It's pretty bold to insist that the status quo has to be maintained for claims that are contradicted by published sources, and I don't believe that any policy requires that. However, the subheading is "Finance" so I have requested comment from WikiProject Finance & Investing.
448:
noo!! the example at the bottom uses two-complement!! if the leftmost bit is used to express the sign (wich it seldom does in processors!) it cannot express -128 but only -127. there is also two zero's, -0 and 0, wich makes some operations quiet odd: -3+4 = 0, wich is wrong..? :P
1090:, 0 is a positive number, a statement that is contradicted in the next sentence. If wikipedia indeed is in favor of not calling 0 a positive number (I myself would say it is), this could be corrected by changing 'greater than zero' in 'strictly greater than zero'. What about it?
5379:, part of the Roman Empire but with local people speaking Egyptian or Greek. The literate mathematicians of the day were all writing in Greek (indeed my understanding is that most mathematical writing throughout the Roman Empire was in Greek). To quote that Roman Egypt article,
2390:
Right now this article covers negative numbers, including their arithmetic and history, positive numbers, sign and its generalizations, the operation of negation, and so forth. This seems like far too many ideas for one article, and I propose splitting this article as follows:
4062:". Mathematics has other opposites, such as reciprocal as an opposite with respect to multiplication. Indeed, 'opposite' is not the same as 'negative', and some of the later sections discussing aspects of negative numbers need to use 'negative of' and not 'opposite of'. --
3464:, where the amount you owe is represented as a "balance" (a positive number), a payment or refund is a negative quantity. This is with respect to the frame of reference of the statement. How the accountant of the bank might maintain their books is a different matter.
1292:
off the current topic slightly. can anyone prove the existance of negative numbers? i dnt mean prove as in negative temperatures i mean prove lik u would prove the quadratic equation by using completing the square or prove the sum to infinity for a geometric series.
838:
Did you mean to say "naive English" or was that supposed to be "native English?" As a native English speaker, I've never heard anyone refer to zero as a positive number, except when discussing the mathematical classification, in which case they were simply wrong. --
266:
I didn't understand the above, so I just cut it and pasted it. I hope the sections on arithmetic with negative numbers are correct, as well as clear, now. Someone really ought to check me, because in my haste I could easily make a non-negative number of errors :-)
1970:- gives -. What one has to show is that a definition or set of axioms including -ve numbers and multiplication works out easier and more intuitive with the rule. The problems people like Carnot had were with the whole idea of an actual negative number existing.
3007:- I've no problem with them both pointing at sign, but if negative number is kept I think positive number should point to it. The concept of a positive number only exists because of negative numbers, they'd just be 'numbers' with no qualification otherwise.
672:
I hear it often enough -- though this is hearsay. There's some evidence in the article itself, where people other than me used the term. But I should provide some documentary evidence of use outside of computer science too, so I'll go look some up. --
4096:
R. S. Shaw reverted my addition to the article, and restored a version based on his misunderstanding of the proof that every number has one and only one opposite. Here is what he wrote, and after I corrected what he wrote, he reverted my correction.
1007:
with. The set of "old positive" elements is usually far less interesting, and when it is interesting, there is virtually always a set of preorders such that it becomes the "strictly positive" set, and the positive set will be interesting then, too!
4050:
I think the introduction is excellent for using the "opposite" concept in introducing negative numbers. For someone who doesn't yet have a firm grasp on negative numbers, this approach is a very good way of helping them along with understanding.
2331:
The article uses an overline minus to denote the negative sign. I don't believe that is in any way a common practice. I can see the good intent behind it but I don't believe wikipedia is supposed to set standards only reflect what is out there.
278:
make sense to me as a repeated addition when I was a kid. 2 * -3 means "two lots of -3", -6, and since this can be also written as -3 * 2, it seemed logical to interpret this as "-3 lots of 2". hm. years since I thought about this stuff... --
508:
Dante, you little sound sarcastic, but really I didn't notice numbers except 0, but then do you have any idea how to name this article? Topics like representation of negative and positive numbers in computers look weird if they are located in
702:
needs to be broken up). Signed numbers are a separate concept from simply integers, since one may consider signed or unsigned numbers of other sorts (like rational, real, cardinal, etc). This article could talk about the common issues, while
544:
All this detail about how to add and subtract negative and positive numbers would be a burden in "Number". However, cross-links sure make sense. Having this as a separate article makes it easier to reference specifically the issue of + vs.
3075:
I would doubt that comment, since historically, there's been a belief amongst the common people that positive numbers are the only kind of numbers that really exist... although those people are also counting magnitudes as positive numbers.
1422:
Statistics Explained: A Guide for Social Science Students by Perry R Hinton - Mathematics - 1995 - 256 pages. Page 31 - "if you calculate a z score and it turns out to be a minus number, all this means is that the score is less than the
2150:
In what way is this "as the result of a definition"? To apply this to integers does not require that one know how the integers are defined, only that one believe that the integers satisfy enough of the axioms of an ordered ring. — Carl
5428:
I wonder what other sources we can find with clear accessible definitions / explanations. I don't think the current "a negative number represents an opposite" is really the most obvious either. Maybe something like "In mathematics, a
3823:
that there is a number 1 less than 0 and another one 1 less than it and so on, in order to get negative integers. That is one way to do it of course. This is the conception of mathematics as an invention, which is frankly revisionist
342:
since negation was something I remember had to be proven in analysis, I'm not entirely sure how correct it is to just blankly state it. Restoring Axel's version for now, until he's back to maybe take the best of both & merge. --
4354:. The word has very broad general application, and hence is very dependent on context. Its use in the lead works because the lead carefully sets the context, beginning with the simple statement that a negative number "represents
3827:
But negative numbers weren't invented. Long before there were any "negative" numbers, there was debt-numbers and asset-numbers, going-forward and going-backward, going-right and going-left, increasing and decreasing etc. It took a
2215:
is negative that would also be consistent with the rules for the multiplication for non-negative numbers." It would seem to violate that 1 is the multiplicative identity, or the rule that the product of two non-zero numbers is not
1578:
Also, many students would read "-x" as "negative x", but again, I'd understand that as "a negaitve x" (i.e. x<0), and that's of course something else. Am I right? Or am I at least right to the extent that "negative x" would be
2948:, which is IMHO a more encyclopedic term than "Negative and non-negative numbers" anyway. The choice should (IMHO again) therefore be between merging all content from this article into that one and making all redirects point to
3568:
before and sometimes after the number, BTW); it doesn't say anything about negative debits. There's an edit war only to the extent that you're restoring a claim to the article that is directly contradicted by relevant sources.
3060:
The topics you indicated are interesting in themselves and have articles about them. Positive numbers aren't worth making an article about separate from negative numbers. The question is where positive number should point at.
2826:
Don't You think it would be kind of weired to move this article to "Negative number"? In that case "Positive number" would be redirect to "Negative number"! I don't think that's Ok. Vanjagenije 14:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
2651:
This title is much clearer, and will be less off-putting for mathematically unsophisticated readers. Most of the content of the article is about negative numbers, and non-negative numbers can be covered in other articles.
2519:
article distinguishes between negative number, negating and subtracting but I'm not certain an article is needed on all three - there a big bit in its talk page with people even disputing there a distinction between them.
1639:
say "6 minus minus 5 is 11", whereas in the usage of the last comment, we could say, more clearly, "6 minus negative 5 is 11". But if we really want to be that clear, we also have available "6 subtract minus 5 is 11".
819:
It may or may not be naive, but it would certainly be confusing and misleading to call zero a positive number. If I say that "I have visited Paris a positive number of times" I would mean I have done it at least once.
5316:
1487:(particularly if you use some other symbol to mean "nines all the way to the left", this notation makes some things more consistent; it's also the equivalent of the two's-complement notation used by most computers).
2787:. The article is about the feature of a number to be either positive or negative. It is not just about negative numbers. "Positive numbers" already redirects to this article. Vanjagenije 01:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
3923:
My first experience of anything leading to a negative number was way back when I was in infants' school around year 1950; where we were told that the answer to an arithmetic problem such as "subtract 5 from 3" was
4315:
Numbers can map to the real world in different ways. Some are symmetrical and arbitrary: we could just as easily make south positive. Others aren't: I can own 100 books but not –100. Some fall in between: we
3295:). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.
4610:
or minus the square root of the quantity b squared minus four ac, the whole thing over two a," helps students avoid mistakes that are all too common when the formula is taught "negative b plus or minus ... ".
5220:
4703:
Opposite does have a definition. In every case, a minus sign represents an opposite, and I cited a dictionary reference. But the mathematical meaning of opposite is "additive inverse", so that is right, too.
4286:
common, interpretations of "opposite" exist too: consider positive integers as house numbers on a uniform street, where 1 is opposite 2, 3 opposite 4, etc. and crossing the street twice takes you back home.
2463:
I don't think much of the idea at all. It might be an idea to rename this article as Negative number, but I really don't see the point of the other two articles. So overall I think all three are superfluous.
2144:
In any ring, -1(-1+1) = 1· 0 = 0. But also -1(-1+1) = -1·-1 + -1·1= -1·-1 + -1. So -1·-1=1. The result for arbitrary products of negative numbers in an ordered ring follows by a sort of linearity, since -a =
1480:
I've not come across this before, so I'm a bit doubtful. I've seen the notation where a bar over the number represents negation, and I've seen various people write (well, define) negative numbers like this:
876:
with 0. There are now elements that are incomparable to 0, and being non-negative no longer means being positive or 0. That's why for complex numbers, the longer term "nonnegative real number" is sometimes
1221:
in the context of "nonnegative matrix" I think one should include not only links but also comments to what is commonly called a positive matrix (for which the associated quadratic form takes ony nonnegative
2335:
I therefore intend to replace these with a normal minus using a bracket if necessary to emphasise the number is a negative number. That is a convention I've seen a number of times. Any thoughts about that?
4276:
Yes, "negative" is ambiguous here: 123 is the negative of –123, but 123 is not a negative number. We need an unambiguous synonym for the first sense, but "opposite" may not be the best choice. How about
1415:
3986:
I think it could. I'll give it a try. Elsewhere in the article, the word "increase" always describes a change from a smaller number to a larger. For example, the change from - 10 to - 3 is an increase.
1420:
1410:
1121:
I'm pretty sure I'm not mistaken in that. One of the first pages of my book on order/lattice theory even mentions it as a common misconception among non-mathematicians to think that greater than means :
5156:
3819:. There is a "primitive/intuitive" notion of less than within a positive domain (cardinals, ordinals, lengths, areas,...). But there is nothing "less than" 0 in those domains. You have to say, let us
4479:
4193:
2371:
I just noticed that the article does not mention the plus or minus signs. Not once. It's like a book written without using the letter 'e'. I think I'll break this very strange habit in the article.
1385:
that says "minus number" for a number less than zero or naught, please cite it and educate me. Until then, there is no need to encourage or even acknowledge confusing and truly obscure terminology.
1464:
page that +5 means "plus five" and -8 means "minus eight". I think that this should be mentioned on this page, just to tell people that it is incorrect. Also, I'm going to add a discussion of .
1255:"Negative numbers were not well-understood until modern times. As recently as the 18th century, the Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler believed that negative numbers were greater than infinity..."
3156:, if interpreted broadly as anything related to the number line, including all numbers found on it, arguably includes everything covered in this article and discussed above. Then we would have
3732:
negative number means before we can understand how it is possible for anything to be less than zero, an idea that is counterintuitive. The clearest way to understand negatives is as opposites.
795:
I don't think the title of this article is as important as its contents: the discussion of 1-complement, 2-complement etc. does not belong here, only a link. After all, that is a discussion of
4320:
say that a millionaire owes –1,000,000 but it's simpler not to. A few we get wrong, such as the charge on the electron. But, although the words are arbitrary, the concepts aren't. Numbers
686:. Content should be moved to either number or integer where negative numbers can be discussed in context. The stuff about binary representation of negative numbers is already well covered in
3232:
if this is to be that article. This is a much better way forward than any of the merge proposals IMO. A little refactoring would be good to support the move, and that will be more progress.
665:
First of all, I have never heard of signed numbers. I mean is it really a popularly accepted term? Do you have evidence? If you do, I have no trouble to restore your contribution myself. --
162:
1840:
If I want to give the inverse of something (as in x changed to 1 / x) I am 'inverting' it. If I want to give the negative of something (as in x changed to -x) I am ... negatating it? ???
3521:"By convention, accountants never enter negative numbers in accounting records. That is, a decrease in an asset is not effected by a 'negative debit entry' but rather by a credit entry."
1575:
Many students would read "-5" as "negative 5", but that's nonsense to me as 5 is not negative. I.e., I understand "negative as a property, and 5 does not have that property. Am I right?
5487:
1374:
If we search Knowledge itself, it gets even better: all of the bolded phrases at the top are used throughout the project, even "non-positive numbers". "Minus numbers" turns up nothing.
5093:
2004:
It's trivial to prove that if 1 is the multiplicative identity of a field F then, in F, (-1)^2 = 1. I have no idea when the terminology necessary for this proof was developed. — Carl
4861:
1629:
purpose, but very informally. Five away from zero, to the left, is NEGATIVE (not minus, unless you're in the 4th grade), five away from zero to the right is POSITIVE (not plus). -
2898:
says they should be common names for the topic, not that they should describe it exactly. If one wanted to describe articles exactly one would start writing articles in te title.
453:
I thought the example I put is quite typical. If I remember correctly, char of C can express -128 to 127 because there are 255 distinct numbers. There should be only one zero. --
4795:
3515:
built on exploiting people's confusion on this subtle point.) My bank statements contradict the claim in the article, and as yet nobody has offered any source to verify it. From
2242:
understanding arithmetical operations. I expect that, however multiplication is "defined", 1 will be the multiplicative identity, the operation will be distributive, etc. — Carl
4054:
It can be carried too far, though. While "a negative number represents an opposite" is a good introduction, further along we need to remember that "a negative number represents
5041:
4917:
3881:", we need a set (and an operation). My example of {0,1,2,3} above would work well (with addition modulo 4). It's still true that 1<2 without a negative number in sight.
2091:
people didn't really understand negative numbers until he twentieth century and probably in the future mathematicians with their standards will say we didn't understand them.
769:
article, which means we want to discuss not just what it is, but also more about history, significance in society and so on. Unfortunately there are a lot of overlaps between
1434:
This should show that in fact the phrase "minus number" is sometimes used to mean the same thing as "negative number". Its popularity may be due to having one less syllable.-
1417:
Basic Ac Circuits by Clayton Rawlins, John Clayton Rawlins - Technology - 2000 - 541 pages. Page 400 - "There is no real number which when squared results in a minus number."
1412:
Practical Statistics Simply Explained by Russell A Langley - Mathematics - 1971 - 399 pages. Page 61 - "Remember that a minus number multiplied by another minus number gives"
472:
This seems quite interesting. If you can, don't hesitate to add this scheme (called one's complement?). The article certainly doesn't have to be limited to one mechanism. --
1259:
This seems unfairly closed-minded. The convention that −1 < 1 is natural if you want an ordered group, but some uses of negative numbers demand a different ordering: see
884:
with 0. That's the tricky one. It's not at all uncommon these days, and there is usually no good way to say "an element that is nonnegative in every individual preorder".
4953:
1821:
The proposed title doesn't seem to be as clear as is the current one. And "Negative number(s)" is inappropriate, as the article covers both negative and positive numbers.
436:
don't think positive number article can grow more than a mere dictionary entry. (I don't mean to impose my will but just trying to justify why I did. We can discuss this.)
364:
That's nothing. I'm waiting for the AE/BE argument to start about whether it should be math or maths... Maybe we should just use mathematics all the time to be safe. ;) --
1898:"Great mathematicians such as Euler, Laplace and Cauchy were unable to provide a complete answer. Hermann Hankel proved using complex numbers that Brahmagupta was right"
1088:
1062:
5477:
1502:
I've seen it before, but it isn't done "often" in my estimation; it's rare, or at most occasional. I first saw it 30 years ago; it's used for negative numbers in the
2805:
This kind of misses the point - the main problem with the current title is that is a wordy title for a subject with a short name. Your proposal has the same problem.
2546:
article is the least important of the three, though I think it would be better to keep it. If you nominate it for deletion, we could ask the opinion of the folks on
1141:
4982:
3038:
because the only reason we refer to it as "black and white" is to differntiate it from the more modern color version? I wouldn't have thought so, in either case. —
1426:
4546:
Yes, we need a clear term which is to addition as reciprocal is to multiplication. I don't think there's a single word for that. The most common term seems to be
4031:
Wiktionary cites three sources, all extremely marginal. You can, these days, find a reference for almost anything. We need to limit ourselves to reliable sources.
1026:
time because you used a nonstandard convention without telling them. Still, it is a convention, and if you prefer another one, just state so clearly and move on.
5492:
5005:
2115:
I removed the rubbish - the source book was pushing a viewpoint according to other books. I also removed the bit about proof and just said justification instead.
2022:
multiplying them. I will look through my history references in a day or two and try to put something more accurate. Unfortunately, I don't have the time today.
1167:
That is simply not true. If you do find a book saying something like that please give a reference to it. In mathematics greater than corresponds to the sign : -->
3541:. We don't care about accounting conventions. This is a mathematics article, and this is a rather obvious mathematical fact. Please desist from edit warring. --
3774:
there are two apples left. After one plays around with subtraction awhile the question arises what happens when you try to subtract b from a when a < b? For
1763:
it must be since it is higher than 0, any number higher than 0 is not negative 0.1 is 0 with .1 added so it is .1 above zero therefore .1 above being negative
1589:
Almost everyone says "minus x". A small number of people say "negative x" because they think it sounds cool or because they are acting in Hollywood movies. --
773:
and other wikipedia articles. Rather than moving stuff here to it, it should be more reasonable to move stuff from there to here as we break up the article. --
4324:
inherently positive or negative, and we can distinguish the two easily. For example, negative is the sign of the product of two numbers of differing signs.
2841:
Kinda weird, sure, but it takes a person using the search box (for positive number) to the exact topic they're looking for, so I don't see a problem with it.
811:
Mathematically, 0 is neither positive nor negative. However, in naive English it is common to use the word "positive" to include 0. Any comments about this??
250:
This situation cannot be understood as repeated addition, and the analogy to debts doesn't help either. The ultimate reason for this rule is that we want the
2618:
per discussion. A merge of some kind may be in order, but until that's decided, this seems to be a well-supported improvement to the name of this article. -
353:
Doesn't this just follow from 0*x = (1 + (-1))*x = x + -1*x = 0, so that -1*x is guaranteed to be the additive inverse (i.e., negation) of x, denoted by -x?
46:
5502:
1490:
But I can't see I've seen the negative sign as a superscript before, and if it's used "often", I should have. Is this specific to some education setting?
152:
1550:
afford a separate section on notation, covering that and various financial notations and maybe other natural and artificial languages and some history. --
658:
since (unlike some page moves) it could be undone if somebody didn't like it (as you don't). But I'd like to hear your opinions of disagreement too! --
1680:
There cant be a -X. Say that was supposed to mean -9. The -9 is the variable. So that would be negative negative 9. There is no -(Random Variable Here)
5472:
1533:
I think it looks really odd and should be changed. With proper use of brackets and/or multiplication symbols I don't see how confusion could arise. --
214:
XNOR on the sign must still be performed, and the rules listed for multiplication and division include a logic operation on the signs of even parity.
3471:
concepts. The negative of a negative is positive. So, it doesn't make sense to argue whether something is absolutely positive or absolutely negative.
262:
The left hand side of this equation equals 0 · (-4) = 0, while the right hand side equals -12 + ; for the two to be equal, we need (-3) · (-4) = 12.
4684:, I changed "opposite" to "additive inverse" in that passage. It is improper to use "opposite" there since it doesn't have a definition. Thanks to
3511:
the accounting position of the bank. What the customer would consider their asset (a deposit obligation) is stated as a bank liability. (There's a
5482:
3441:
game shows?). It's heading in the direction of so many "popular culture" sections, where editors start playing "I spy" with the article subject.
4629:
and is positive if b<0. (In isolation, "minus" is also ambiguous, this time with subtraction, but the context clarifies its meaning here.)
326:-6 × 3 = (-1 × 6) × 3 = -1 × (6 × 3) = -1 × 18 = -18 (if you have a debt of $ 6, and then your debt is tripled, you end up with a debt of $ 18.)
2547:
128:
5497:
5225:
4724:
3594:
A debit is the amount charged to your account. A credit is a payment made to reduce your debt. Credits are identified by a negative (—) sign.
3354:
3343:
with the same assignment of true and false as real numbers. The relation of signs in multiplication (and division) also mirrors even and odd
3172:
all redirect to the appropriate heading of that article, with each idea having its own concept briefly described, similar to what is done at
1948:
difficult to justify why -1^2 = 1. A source for that opinion would be nice, though, so we can attribute it to somebody in particular. — Carl
236:
2515:
article may have a point okay. I think negation should just point to negative number or perhaps the sign article or subtraction. I know the
1770:
1299:
4420:
4134:
2058:
same sort of thing. I can't imaging him having the least bit of a problem with negative numbers when he treated complex numbers so well!
1614:
property, "minus" seems more like the operator to me. "-" is always "minus" in "7 - 5", and "7 - ( - 5 )" would be "7 minus negative 5".
3272:
3077:
2877:
1847:
1733:
1704:
If -X was supposed to be -9, then X would be 9, not -9. Negating variable names is quite common and the basis for subtraction itself. —
1646:
1551:
655:
579:
because I knew negative and positive numbers sound like any number but zero, which is not the intent of this article. Any objection? --
375:
Yup, you're right, Chaz. It's hard to determine how axiomatic to be in covering what the lay readers takes to be a very basic topic. --
3898:
As for "negative" numbers, the concept isn't useful in this case since every element can be regarded as both positive and negative. --
3713:
3698:
3668:
3640:
3569:
3524:
3446:
1320:
799:
for negative numbers in the binary system, not of negative numbers themselves. What we desparately need however is a history section.
3335:
also referred to as XNOR if you define positive as true and negative as false. The exact opposite operation occurs when dealing with
5160:
2629:
1696:
829:
People don't use their languages correctly many times. But I think it is unnecessary to mention such misuses in too much detail. --
625:
I think it's fine where it is. The discussion of where zero falls is natural for an article called "negative and positive numbers".
611:
119:
80:
1476:
In order to avoid confusion between the concepts of subtraction and negation, often the negative sign is written as a superscript:
1572:
In Danish, "-5" and "-x" are read aloud as "minus fem" and "minus x", not "negativ fem" and "negativ x". How's that in English?
5467:
397:. They're not the same thing, after all. I don't expect to read about positive numbers in an article called "negative number".
5098:
3832:
to put the debt-numbers and asset-numbers along with zero into one whole and say, "let us call these things integers". He was
2588:
I think my previous proposal was far too complicated to generate a consensus. Instead I am proposing a straightforward move:
888:
To illustrate (and to give me some practice with tables, but don't tell anyone I wasn't perfect before), consider the space
3755:) set. This definition does not rely on negative numbers. Indeed, it works for sets such as {0,1,2,3} or temperatures in
3667:
It doesn't say "negative number" or "negative debit" and I wonder if you're even open to any constructive compromise here.
3759:
where negative numbers do not occur, and even for applications such as alphabetical order where no numbers appear at all.
489:
421:
3599:
My understanding is that a credit is a negative debit. What is your understanding? Why is a negative sign mentioned? --
1984:
Great, I am glad someone more knowledgeable than myself stepped in. Please feel free to delete questionable material.
55:
5095:
For exponent with negative index or root with negative degree, the result is their positive anwser’s inverse fraction.
3302:, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed.
3259:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
2609:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
1227:
suggest to specify "nonnegative reals" or "nonnegative integer" etc. in order to get the "usual" (particular) meaning.
3937:
3299:
3292:
1159:
3586:" (imaginary domain?). Minus sign is indeed used to indicate a negative number. The exact statement in the source is:
1933:
I am puzzled by the implication that Euler, Laplace and Cauchy could not figure out something that brahmagupta did.
5375:
I am also not enough of an expert to feel confident about the precise terminology used by historians. But this was
3031:
785:
781:
770:
748:
699:
687:
406:
4258:
if we say "the opposite of an opposite is the number we started with", most people find that easy to understand.
3291:
This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see
2874:
184:
Added rules for division (in quite simplistic terms, since this is the same as multiplication -- same sign -: -->
555:
5401:
More confusion about negative numbers, which I've had to revert twice. The edit I have twice reverted says "In
4728:
4017:
3957:
3748:
3358:
1826:
1503:
595:
240:
1774:
3276:
1851:
1737:
1650:
1520:
I believe the raised sign is pretty common in early education, where the target audience is easily confused.
5046:
3327:
The relationship between rules of sign in multiplication, division and exponent operations and Boolean logic
3081:
2881:
2852:
2816:
2681:
1555:
1324:
4863:
It’s because multiplying any negative numbers for odd number times, there is always one negative sign left
4378:
reduce the problems, I suggest using the term "additive opposite" in this subsection, something like this:
1692:
1400:
1214:) the meaning of "not negative" and is thus invariably defined once "negative" is defined. For example, an
861:
is usually neither negative nor positive nor 0. In order of increasing generality, the possibilities are:
5418:
5328:
4799:
4709:
4667:
4615:
4266:
4086:
4036:
3992:
3933:
3805:
3737:
3717:
3702:
3672:
3644:
3573:
3528:
3450:
3422:
3339:, which are based on the formula of the square root of a negative, and is identical to the truth table of
2709:
424:
is grammatically better. Still, I rather prefer seperate articles for them, all linking to one another...
4742:
As base of exponent, if the index is even, it will be positive. If the index is odd, it will be negative
4013:
3953:
2927:. That would be ridiculous. We'll have to hive it off into a separate article if the move goes ahead. —
3869:
3786:
3752:
3492:
2834:
2794:
2697:
2646:
2574:
2428:
I have already created the first three proposed articles, using much of the material from this article:
1038:
negative." Since a is greater than b means (by defenition of order, whether it's total or partial) that
606:
But what about "I don't expect to read about positive numbers in an article called "negative number" by
61:
3106:
812:
105:
4745:
1688:
1569:
I am a native Dane, but teach math in English at highschool level. I have a problem with terminology.
1107:
No inconsistency. You got the definition of greater wrong. What you put in was greater than or equal.
881:
594:, for one thing because the latter does not make it perfectly clear that mathematics is the subject.
17:
5365:
5361:
5343:
4585:
4537:
4067:
3350:
3344:
3208:
3181:
3030:, because the term "lesser ape" only exists to define those apes that are not great apes? And should
2770:
2767:
2751:
2748:
2717:
2516:
2168:
You are defining that multiplication of negative numbers follows the rules of a ring. If we had that
1843:
1809:
1766:
1729:
1684:
1642:
1316:
1283:
1260:
1155:
1147:
1095:
501:
365:
232:
5010:
4882:
4713:
4671:
4619:
4270:
4090:
4071:
2141:
Ironically we ran into an edit conflict. I was going to ask you what you fund odd about this proof:
32:
5449:
5387:
4693:
4649:
4361:
Its use in other, less explicit contexts can be problematic because the very wide range of general
4306:
3903:
3845:
3658:
3604:
3546:
3512:
3479:
3229:
3169:
3165:
3152:? Right now that article is fairly short, and essentially duplicates what is in this one anyway.
2046:
2027:
1822:
1710:
1668:
354:
1509:
I think the usage in the article should be reduced to a single example, and the "often" changed. -
199:
127:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
3407:
3196:
3122:
2983:
2949:
2945:
2842:
2806:
2762:
2671:
2657:
2555:
2543:
2512:
2496:
2488:
2453:
2442:
2437:
2410:
2403:
2317:
1867:
599:
482:
111:
3712:
place. Anyone who thinks otherwise may go raise the issue in a Knowledge forum of their choice.
95:
74:
4922:
840:
300:, and may be expressed by placing a minus sign in front of a number or a quantity in brackets:
5414:
5324:
4705:
4685:
4663:
4645:
4611:
4262:
4082:
4032:
3988:
3878:
3816:
3801:
3733:
3418:
3381:
3377:
3336:
3317:
3237:
3043:
2991:
2965:
2932:
1989:
1938:
1906:
1887:
1794:
1753:
1362:
hits, and all of them are coherently talking about negative numbers. But "minus numbers" gets
830:
789:
774:
760:
712:
674:
666:
659:
648:
641:
615:
580:
559:
533:
514:
473:
454:
441:
410:
2312:
numbers always must have a minus sign. This made the statement incorrect and contradictory.
4634:
4559:
4547:
4329:
4291:
3973:
3886:
3866:
3783:
3764:
3489:
3332:
3035:
2830:
2790:
2694:
2642:
2571:
1215:
1067:
1041:
743:
can't also exist separately. And maybe when all the material specific to those articles, to
525:
5339:
4679:
4581:
4533:
4081:
zero is its own opposite: a zero dollar profit is exactly the same as a zero dollar loss.
4063:
3370:
3204:
3177:
3161:
3157:
2979:
2975:
2957:
2953:
2924:
2920:
2895:
2713:
2633:
2484:
2483:
reason it needs the longer name is that this article covers both topics.) If you look at
2432:
2417:
2396:
1805:
1619:
1510:
1435:
1279:
1126:
740:
736:
720:
587:
510:
394:
386:
4958:
4606:
negation of something else". Their definition of "reciprocal" does not mention opposite.
5446:
5384:
4985:
4689:
4302:
3899:
3856:
3841:
3654:
3600:
3542:
3475:
3066:
3012:
2944:- I've just noticed that the whole article covers basically the same subject matter as
2903:
2734:
2619:
2525:
2469:
2376:
2356:
2341:
2265:
2190:
2120:
2096:
2063:
2042:
2023:
1975:
1705:
1663:
1630:
1534:
1176:
1168:
and excludes the case of them being equal, greater than or equal corresponds to ≥. See
1112:
1022:, in French, and that this practice has spread through adoption of French terminology.
858:
800:
293:
251:
4990:
1230:
But if someone feels an inspiration, I strongly suggest to make the adequate changes.
5461:
4625:
I was taught "minus b plus or minus ...". I understood that the first "minus" means
4551:
3582:
The source is indeed talking about an account statement. Nowhere does it talk about "
3403:
3118:
2653:
2551:
2492:
2449:
2313:
2281:
2249:
2158:
2080:
2011:
1955:
1923:
1863:
1590:
1521:
1449:
1386:
1303:
1264:
1238:
1019:
873:
752:
732:
637:
568:
464:
567:
Yes. It sounds like there's many good reasons to leave this as a separate page. --
4350:
I think part of the above is showing some of the difficulty of using the bare word
4058:
opposite" is, more accurately, short for "a negative number represents an opposite
3340:
3313:
3250:
3233:
3039:
2987:
2961:
2928:
2600:
1985:
1934:
1902:
1883:
1790:
1749:
1493:
1404:
1382:
1029:
866:
821:
724:
691:
626:
607:
425:
398:
376:
344:
280:
268:
4576:
since that had a bit of continuity with the intro and some seemed to think use of
558:. If possible, we certainly want to add about the history of negative numbers. --
334:-3 × -4 = (-1 × 3) × (-1 × 4) = (-1 × -1) × (3 × 4) = 1 × 12 = 12, or more simply,
322:
This equivalence can be used to simplify multiplication involving negative terms:
274:
Makes sense to me. Follow the brackets carefully, Ed. negative * negative always
5402:
5376:
4919:
Since negative number to the power of odd number will always be negative number
4630:
4626:
4555:
4385:
The additive opposite of a number is unique, as is shown by the following proof.
4325:
4287:
3969:
3882:
3862:
3829:
3760:
3331:
The rule about real number negatives exactly matches up with the truth table of
3200:
3149:
3139:
390:
124:
3305:
I searched the page history, and found 13 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see
3583:
3385:
3023:
2421:
1169:
1151:
1091:
1014:
I definitely think that this should be discussed in an article linked to from
869:
with 0. The usual terminology is positive, negative, zero, as in the article.
591:
576:
551:
101:
4278:
3062:
3027:
3008:
2899:
2730:
2521:
2465:
2372:
2352:
2337:
2261:
2186:
2116:
2092:
2059:
1971:
1172:
1108:
849:
It's increasingly common in mathematics to distinguish, in general, between
1882:
Has anybody noticed these two paragraphs? Do they belong in the article?
857:
objects, abolishing the slightly awkward term non-negative (for example, a
2073:
of complex numbers) were not introduced until after Euler's death. — Carl
5438:
3778:
the key idea is that negative numbers are the solutions of the equations
3102:
2277:
2245:
2154:
2076:
2007:
1951:
1919:
1604:
1580:
1234:
1231:
1015:
500:
Zero, the square root of zero, the cube root of zero, zero squared. ;) --
5452:
5422:
5390:
5369:
5347:
5332:
5311:{\displaystyle x^{-y}=x^{0-y}={\frac {x^{0}}{x^{y}}}={\frac {1}{x^{y}}}}
4984:
For even, there is no anwser for real number, however there is one with
4732:
4697:
4653:
4638:
4589:
4563:
4541:
4333:
4310:
4295:
4040:
4021:
3996:
3977:
3961:
3941:
3907:
3890:
3872:
3849:
3809:
3789:
3768:
3741:
3721:
3706:
3676:
3662:
3648:
3608:
3577:
3550:
3532:
3495:
3488:
I agree with the above. And the example seem accurate and useful to me.
3483:
3474:
Including a tricky example like this in fact illustrates that point. --
3454:
3426:
3411:
3362:
3321:
3280:
3241:
3212:
3185:
3126:
3085:
3070:
3047:
3016:
2995:
2969:
2936:
2907:
2885:
2857:
2821:
2773:
2754:
2738:
2721:
2700:
2686:
2661:
2622:
2577:
2559:
2529:
2500:
2491:, you can see what I'm proposing for the content of those two articles.
2473:
2457:
2380:
2360:
2345:
2321:
2286:
2269:
2254:
2194:
2163:
2124:
2100:
2085:
2067:
2050:
2031:
2016:
1993:
1979:
1960:
1942:
1928:
1910:
1891:
1871:
1855:
1830:
1813:
1798:
1778:
1757:
1741:
1715:
1673:
1654:
1633:
1622:
1607:
1593:
1583:
1559:
1537:
1524:
1513:
1496:
1452:
1438:
1403:
turns up several usages, some of which seem like they could be called a
1389:
1328:
1306:
1287:
1267:
1241:
1180:
1116:
1099:
1032:
843:
244:
4723:
What do you think? Exponent and root is a key part of mathematic too.--
3460:
This is an article on mathematics, not accounting. In the context of a
1916:
It sounds like nothing more than overly flowery language to me. — Carl
1461:
755:(or whatever you want to call it), in which case it can be folded into
744:
704:
4358:
opposite" and then carefully describing in what way it is an opposite.
5434:
5410:
5323:
This explanation is not clear, therefore not suitable for Knowledge.
3756:
3173:
2041:
The historical information should be moved to the proper subsection.
1785:
Suggested move: Negative and non-negative number → Sign (mathematics)
756:
683:
521:
2260:
you 'intuitive' understanding that you wouldn't qualify either! ;-)
2185:
only proving one could do is that saying it is a ring is consistent
1546:
keep the signs distinct (so they don't appear to be the same dash).
1429:
should, consistent with price stability, have a minus number in M1."
4394:
of a number as a value which when added to the number sums to zero.
698:
You seem to be correct about the computer representation (although
405:
There is no doubt they are not the same thing. How about the title
4120:
330:
Multiplication of two negative numbers yields a positive result:
647:
I revert new move since there seems no agreement with it yet. --
485:, and this article ("Negative and positive numbers") links to it.
463:
much less common today, but it's still important historically --
5442:
1211:
5215:{\displaystyle {\sqrt{8}}={\frac {1}{\sqrt{8}}}={\frac {1}{2}}}
4879:
As radicand of root, if the degree is odd, it will be negative
4261:
I hope this clears things up. I will restore my correct proof.
3298:
Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the
1210:
nonnegative can be defined as desired, but "non negative" has (
314:
In fact, negation is equivalent to multiplying a number by -1:
4501:. Using the law of cancellation for addition, it is seen that
4369:
I agree that the phrasing "Let x be a number and let y be its
4219:. Using the law of cancellation for addition, it is seen that
1894:
More specifically, I was puzzled by the following contention:
1298:
means, I think you'll get an excellent response if you ask on
26:
2837:
are missing from user's signature and have been provided here
2797:
are missing from user's signature and have been provided here
4281:(in sense 1)? Better suggestions are welcome!A negative is
4009:
3228:
certainly deserves an article, and the current title fails
3101:- I think that regardless of whether the renaming happens,
385:
Hold on. I really don't think it makes much sense to merge
3117:
is derived. If anything, the reverse should be the case.
5151:{\displaystyle 5^{-2}={\frac {1}{5^{2}}}={\frac {1}{25}}}
493:
3437:
The examples section seems a bit excessive (not one but
2599:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
1064:, the first part of the definition tells us that, since
3538:
3523:
The example is not accurate, and therefore not useful.
3309:
3306:
3113:
is treated as the more fundamental concept, from which
2974:(Or, as a third choice, this article could be moved to
3109:, not to this page. At the moment it looks as though
2351:
Thanks Jowa fan, I had forgotten to get round to it.
1603:
And should some of this go into the article somehow?--
892:(that's just maths-speak for tuples of real numbers):
5228:
5163:
5101:
5049:
5013:
4993:
4961:
4925:
4885:
4802:
4748:
4719:
Adding Exponent and root onto the calculation section
4474:{\displaystyle x+y'=0,\quad {\text{and}}\quad x+y=0.}
4423:
4188:{\displaystyle x+y'=0,\quad {\text{and}}\quad x+y=0.}
4137:
3249:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1129:
1070:
1044:
788:
or something (I don't remember the current name). --
690:. The use of links where appropriate should suffice.
2670:- Slight rewording to the intro if it happens, tho.
123:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1484:....99999 is -1 ....99998 is -2 ....99990 is -10
719:Agreed. Could we have a simple page title back, ie
296:of a number by -1 changes its sign. This is called
5310:
5214:
5150:
5087:
5043:The formula for negative redicand with even index
5035:
4999:
4976:
4947:
4911:
4855:
4789:
4580:was good and perhaps essential in this passage. -
4473:
4187:
1135:
1082:
1056:
4373:" could be confusing to some, but using the word
4249:The problem begins with the first sentence. "Let
1789:Since Knowledge prefers a single noun in titles.
4572:, it being the conventional term, but went with
5488:Knowledge level-4 vital articles in Mathematics
2409:A short article on the algebraic operation of
751:is taken out, there'll be very little left of
3589:
1836:The Process of Causing Negative - Terminology
8:
711:(like its special position among rings). --
4532:Any comments about this proposed change? --
4513:is equal to any other additive opposite of
1878:Brahmagupta stated in Brahmasputhasiddhanta
707:would deal with the specific properties of
258:(3 + (-3)) · (-4) = 3 · (-4) + (-3) · (-4).
3467:More generally, negative and positive are
2708:. Non-negative numbers get covered by the
2399:, emphasizing their elementary properties.
1339:Terminology is important. It's time for a
69:
5300:
5291:
5280:
5270:
5264:
5249:
5233:
5227:
5202:
5191:
5182:
5169:
5164:
5162:
5138:
5127:
5118:
5106:
5100:
5078:
5073:
5060:
5050:
5048:
5014:
5012:
4992:
4960:
4930:
4924:
4896:
4886:
4884:
4835:
4816:
4801:
4775:
4762:
4747:
4449:
4422:
4163:
4136:
4077:not represent the opposite of a profit.
4045:
1128:
1069:
1043:
1018:. It is also worth mentioning that 0 is
481:A more detailed discussion is already in
2729:, yeah I hate unnecessarily long names.
2274:I think you're right about that. — Carl
1351:, and the other 2 are incomprehensible.
492:... hm... so that's like numbers except
5478:Knowledge vital articles in Mathematics
5088:{\displaystyle {\sqrt{-x}}=i{\sqrt{x}}}
4010:https://en.wiktionary.org/Talk:increase
1354:So I Google "negative numbers" with an
1199:"Division is similar to multiplication"
532:Good point. Why not? Any objection? --
185:positive result, different signs -: -->
71:
30:
5433:represents the opposite of a positive
5380:
2960:into their own dedicated articles. —
2570:All three articles seem useful to me.
2548:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Mathematics
18:Talk:Negative and non-negative numbers
5493:B-Class vital articles in Mathematics
4856:{\displaystyle (-4)^{3}=-(4^{3})=-64}
1460:I saw (and corrected) a claim on the
337:-3 × -4 = -1 × (3 × -4) = -(-12) = 12
7:
3653:The source says "negative sign". --
3539:bringing in "accounting conventions"
2614:The result of the move request was:
1300:Knowledge:Reference desk/Mathematics
520:Why not put all this information on
117:This article is within the scope of
4521:is the unique additive opposite of
3751:as a preceding b in an ordered (or
3433:Negative numbers in popular culture
2424:(conceivably just a disambig page).
1191:bad jokes and other non...negatives
60:It is of interest to the following
5503:High-priority mathematics articles
4407:be its additive opposite. Suppose
4231:is equal to any other negative of
1206:some comments on the folllowing :
1143:. HSNie 23:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
25:
4790:{\displaystyle (-5)^{2}=5^{2}=25}
4688:for the suggested correction. --
3861:I think you've conflated some of
3517:Understanding the Financial Score
2630:Negative and non-negative numbers
612:negative and non-negative numbers
137:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
5473:Knowledge level-4 vital articles
4411:is another additive opposite of
3199:could be merged/redirected into
140:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
104:
94:
73:
40:
31:
5036:{\displaystyle {\sqrt {-4}}=2i}
4912:{\displaystyle {\sqrt{-125}}=5}
4867:-3 × -4 × -5 = 3 × 4 × -5 = -60
3952:What does that exactly mean? --
2785:"Positive and negative numbers"
1247:First usage of negative numbers
575:I would like to rename this to
157:This article has been rated as
5483:B-Class level-4 vital articles
5453:15:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
5423:10:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
4871:But if even, there is no left
4841:
4828:
4813:
4803:
4759:
4749:
3918:Whether negative numbers exist
2649:) 02:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
1726:is 0.1 a non-negative number
1525:19:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
1514:18:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
1497:14:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
1399:obscure. The first page of a
1242:13:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
1202:"If both have different signs"
1195:no comment on the following :
420:That would be better. Perhaps
1:
5409:represents the opposite of a
4454:
4447:
4366:nonzero but instead is zero.)
4168:
4161:
4041:12:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
4022:11:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
3722:18:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
3707:03:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
3677:03:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
3663:23:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
3649:20:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
3609:19:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
3578:18:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
3551:12:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
3533:20:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
3496:17:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
3484:11:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
3455:06:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
3242:17:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
3127:02:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
3086:06:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
2894:The policy for article names
2623:01:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
2402:An article on the concept of
2346:11:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
2322:22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
1856:05:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
1634:03:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
1538:09:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
1288:03:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
1268:01:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
953:zero or positive or negative
490:Negative and positive numbers
422:Negative and positive numbers
131:and see a list of open tasks.
5498:B-Class mathematics articles
5391:05:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
5370:10:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
4046:'Negative' versus 'opposite'
3997:12:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
3978:23:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
3962:22:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
3942:10:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
3412:19:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
3363:21:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
3322:16:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
3213:00:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3186:00:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
3071:18:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
3048:14:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
3017:13:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
2996:08:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
2970:08:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
2937:08:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
2908:10:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
2886:04:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
2858:14:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
2822:02:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
2774:11:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
2755:22:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
2739:13:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
2722:12:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
2701:07:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
2687:04:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
2662:01:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
2578:20:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
2560:18:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
2530:13:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
2501:22:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
2474:22:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
2458:21:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
2416:Possibly a short article on
2381:12:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
2361:12:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
2287:21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
2270:20:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
2255:14:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
2195:13:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
2164:13:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
2125:12:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
2101:18:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
2086:13:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
2068:12:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
2051:09:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
2032:08:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
2017:19:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
1994:19:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
1980:19:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
1961:18:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
1943:18:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
1929:18:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
1911:18:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
1892:18:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
1872:03:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
1779:07:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
1742:20:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
1674:06:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
1623:06:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
1608:15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
1594:14:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
1584:14:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
950:zero or positive or negative
844:03:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
407:negative and positive number
310:-1 × (3 + 4) = -(3 + 4) = -7
245:22:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
198:"... you get the idea. ;) --
5437:; together the two numbers
5348:19:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
5333:10:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
4733:04:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
4654:03:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
3895:And 2 < 1 since 2+3 = 1.
2875:positive, negative and zero
1329:12:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
907:"new expanded" terminology
894:
735:, I also see no reason why
590:would make more sense than
5519:
4948:{\displaystyle n^{3}=-125}
4714:12:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
4698:17:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
4672:14:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
4639:12:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
4620:11:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
4590:20:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
4564:22:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
4542:22:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
4334:18:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
4311:14:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
4296:12:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
4271:12:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
4239:is the unique negative of
4091:11:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
4072:18:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
3369:Question on correctness -
3032:Black and white television
2307:Alternative Representation
1699:) 1:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC).
1453:07:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
1439:06:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
1390:05:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
1251:From the current article:
786:political status of Taiwan
782:Computer numbering formats
771:Computer numbering formats
749:Computer numbering formats
700:Computer numbering formats
688:Computer numbering formats
598:seems overly complicated.
556:concept of negative number
4123:of the real number system
4111:be its negative. Suppose
3427:09:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
3266:Lack of Detail in History
1716:04:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
1565:A question on terminology
1560:11:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
1381:number". If anyone has a
833:01:38, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
803:15:04, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
156:
89:
68:
5356:Diophantus, Hellenistic?
4060:with respect to addition
3281:09:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
3256:Please do not modify it.
2606:Please do not modify it.
2327:Remove superscript minus
1831:04:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
1814:06:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
1799:14:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
1758:14:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
1655:09:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
1504:APL programming language
1307:17:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
1181:01:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
1117:23:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
1100:18:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
824:22:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
815:19:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
677:09:58 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
602:00:08 22 May 2003 (UTC)
596:Negativity (mathematics)
583:22:57 21 May 2003 (UTC)
528:22:01 21 May 2003 (UTC)
517:21:51 21 May 2003 (UTC)
444:13:17 21 May 2003 (UTC)
401:13:03 21 May 2003 (UTC)
347:11:15 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)
283:10:26 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)
271:20:58 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)
163:project's priority scale
4115:is another negative of
3908:16:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
3891:15:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
3873:15:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
3850:14:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
3810:11:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
3790:16:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
3769:12:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
3742:11:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
3371:Negative number#History
2766:per Amakuru is better.
1083:{\displaystyle 0\leq 0}
1057:{\displaystyle b\leq a}
1033:00:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
792:22:04 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
777:21:30 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
763:09:58 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
727:18:56 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
715:09:58 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
694:16:39 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
669:04:48 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
662:04:42 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
651:04:21 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
644:04:14 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
629:14:24 22 May 2003 (UTC)
618:02:24 22 May 2003 (UTC)
571:22:30 21 May 2003 (UTC)
562:22:27 21 May 2003 (UTC)
536:22:02 21 May 2003 (UTC)
504:19:25 21 May 2003 (UTC)
476:22:00 21 May 2003 (UTC)
467:19:30 21 May 2003 (UTC)
457:19:15 21 May 2003 (UTC)
428:13:11 21 May 2003 (UTC)
413:13:08 21 May 2003 (UTC)
368:11:18 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)
357:11:32 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)
120:WikiProject Mathematics
5468:B-Class vital articles
5312:
5216:
5152:
5089:
5037:
5001:
4978:
4949:
4913:
4857:
4791:
4475:
4189:
3865:, comments with mine.
3836:rather than inventing.
3782:= a-b where a < b.
3596:
2710:law of excluded middle
1448:pretty evident to me.
1358:, and this time I get
1137:
1084:
1058:
5313:
5217:
5153:
5090:
5038:
5002:
4979:
4950:
4914:
4858:
4792:
4476:
4190:
3462:credit card statement
2923:must not redirect to
2835:User talk:Vanjagenije
2795:User talk:Vanjagenije
1687:comment was added by
1395:The usage is not all
1138:
1136:{\displaystyle \geq }
1085:
1059:
614:? Sounds strange? --
47:level-4 vital article
5226:
5161:
5099:
5047:
5011:
4991:
4977:{\displaystyle n=-5}
4959:
4923:
4883:
4875:-5 × -4 = 5 × 4 = 20
4800:
4746:
4421:
4403:be a number and let
4253:be a number and let
4135:
4107:be a number and let
3537:Once again, you are
3513:whole class of scams
3345:Parity (mathematics)
3293:WP:Jagged 85 cleanup
2917:Support in principle
2747:. Nobrainer indeed.
2517:Plus and minus signs
2395:An article covering
1468:Superscript notation
1261:negative temperature
1127:
1068:
1042:
985:"strictly negative"
143:mathematics articles
4568:I considered using
3224:. The concept of a
3170:Non-positive number
3166:Non-negative number
3105:should redirect to
2448:What do you think?
2367:Plus and minus sign
1472:The article claims
807:Classification of 0
307:-1 × -8 = -(-8) = 8
5308:
5212:
5148:
5085:
5033:
4997:
4974:
4945:
4909:
4853:
4787:
4471:
4455:
4448:
4185:
4169:
4162:
3402:correct? Thanks,
3390:third century A.D.
3197:Sign (mathematics)
3148:this article into
3134:Alternate proposal
2984:Sign (mathematics)
2950:Sign (mathematics)
2946:Sign (mathematics)
2763:sign (mathematics)
2544:Negation (algebra)
2513:Sign (mathematics)
2489:sign (mathematics)
2443:Negation (algebra)
2438:Sign (mathematics)
1401:Google Book search
1133:
1080:
1054:
921:strictly positive
904:"new" terminology
901:"old" terminology
855:strictlyt positive
483:Integral data type
186:negative result).
112:Mathematics portal
56:content assessment
5306:
5286:
5210:
5197:
5196:
5177:
5146:
5133:
5083:
5065:
5022:
5000:{\displaystyle i}
4901:
4738:Exponent and root
4574:additive opposite
4452:
4392:additive opposite
4166:
3948:Negative increase
3934:Anthony Appleyard
3930:5 won't go into 3
3879:commutative group
3753:partially ordered
3749:generally defined
3417:A.D. is correct.
3378:Hellenistic Egypt
3353:comment added by
3347:, respectively.
3337:imaginary numbers
3287:Misuse of sources
3026:be a redirect to
2850:
2838:
2814:
2798:
2679:
2650:
2542:I agree that the
2285:
2253:
2162:
2084:
2015:
1959:
1927:
1846:comment added by
1769:comment added by
1744:
1732:comment added by
1700:
1645:comment added by
1319:comment added by
1164:
1150:comment added by
1004:
1003:
882:partial preorders
235:comment added by
177:
176:
173:
172:
169:
168:
16:(Redirected from
5510:
5397:Negative numbers
5317:
5315:
5314:
5309:
5307:
5305:
5304:
5292:
5287:
5285:
5284:
5275:
5274:
5265:
5260:
5259:
5241:
5240:
5221:
5219:
5218:
5213:
5211:
5203:
5198:
5195:
5187:
5183:
5178:
5176:
5165:
5157:
5155:
5154:
5149:
5147:
5139:
5134:
5132:
5131:
5119:
5114:
5113:
5094:
5092:
5091:
5086:
5084:
5082:
5074:
5066:
5064:
5059:
5051:
5042:
5040:
5039:
5034:
5023:
5015:
5006:
5004:
5003:
4998:
4983:
4981:
4980:
4975:
4954:
4952:
4951:
4946:
4935:
4934:
4918:
4916:
4915:
4910:
4902:
4900:
4895:
4887:
4876:
4868:
4862:
4860:
4859:
4854:
4840:
4839:
4821:
4820:
4796:
4794:
4793:
4788:
4780:
4779:
4767:
4766:
4683:
4570:additive inverse
4548:additive inverse
4480:
4478:
4477:
4472:
4453:
4450:
4437:
4415:. By definition:
4194:
4192:
4191:
4186:
4167:
4164:
4151:
3860:
3365:
3333:Logical equality
3258:
3036:Color television
3022:example, should
2855:
2848:
2847:
2831:User:Vanjagenije
2828:
2819:
2812:
2811:
2791:User:Vanjagenije
2788:
2684:
2677:
2676:
2637:
2608:
2418:positive numbers
2397:negative numbers
2386:Split suggestion
2275:
2243:
2199:"If we had that
2152:
2074:
2005:
1949:
1917:
1858:
1781:
1727:
1713:
1708:
1682:
1671:
1666:
1657:
1331:
1218:is not negative.
1216:imaginary number
1163:
1144:
1142:
1140:
1139:
1134:
1089:
1087:
1086:
1081:
1063:
1061:
1060:
1055:
895:
550:Then what about
252:distributive law
247:
145:
144:
141:
138:
135:
114:
109:
108:
98:
91:
90:
85:
77:
70:
53:
44:
43:
36:
35:
27:
21:
5518:
5517:
5513:
5512:
5511:
5509:
5508:
5507:
5458:
5457:
5431:negative number
5407:negative number
5399:
5362:Dominique Meeùs
5358:
5296:
5276:
5266:
5245:
5229:
5224:
5223:
5159:
5158:
5123:
5102:
5097:
5096:
5052:
5045:
5044:
5009:
5008:
4989:
4988:
4957:
4956:
4926:
4921:
4920:
4888:
4881:
4880:
4877:
4874:
4869:
4866:
4831:
4812:
4798:
4797:
4771:
4758:
4744:
4743:
4740:
4725:218.250.135.170
4721:
4677:
4552:random citation
4430:
4419:
4418:
4144:
4133:
4132:
4048:
3950:
3920:
3854:
3729:
3435:
3394:Should this be
3374:
3355:109.149.204.234
3348:
3329:
3289:
3268:
3263:
3254:
3226:negative number
3162:Positive number
3158:Negative number
3144:How about just
2982:redirecting to
2980:Positive number
2976:Negative number
2958:Positive number
2954:Negative number
2952:, or splitting
2925:Negative number
2921:Positive number
2853:
2843:
2817:
2807:
2682:
2672:
2634:Negative number
2604:
2594:
2586:
2485:negative number
2433:Negative number
2406:in mathematics.
2388:
2369:
2329:
2309:
2207:is 0 if either
2176:is 0 if either
1880:
1841:
1838:
1787:
1764:
1724:
1711:
1706:
1683:—The preceding
1669:
1664:
1640:
1567:
1470:
1405:reliable source
1383:reliable source
1337:
1314:
1275:
1249:
1193:
1145:
1125:
1124:
1066:
1065:
1040:
1039:
809:
741:Positive number
737:Negative number
721:negative number
636:They're called
588:negative number
511:negative number
502:Dante Alighieri
395:Negative number
387:Positive number
366:Dante Alighieri
237:109.149.204.234
230:
182:
142:
139:
136:
133:
132:
110:
103:
83:
54:on Knowledge's
51:
41:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
5516:
5514:
5506:
5505:
5500:
5495:
5490:
5485:
5480:
5475:
5470:
5460:
5459:
5456:
5455:
5398:
5395:
5394:
5393:
5357:
5354:
5353:
5352:
5351:
5350:
5335:
5303:
5299:
5295:
5290:
5283:
5279:
5273:
5269:
5263:
5258:
5255:
5252:
5248:
5244:
5239:
5236:
5232:
5209:
5206:
5201:
5194:
5190:
5186:
5181:
5175:
5172:
5168:
5145:
5142:
5137:
5130:
5126:
5122:
5117:
5112:
5109:
5105:
5081:
5077:
5072:
5069:
5063:
5058:
5055:
5032:
5029:
5026:
5021:
5018:
4996:
4986:imaginary unit
4973:
4970:
4967:
4964:
4944:
4941:
4938:
4933:
4929:
4908:
4905:
4899:
4894:
4891:
4873:
4865:
4852:
4849:
4846:
4843:
4838:
4834:
4830:
4827:
4824:
4819:
4815:
4811:
4808:
4805:
4786:
4783:
4778:
4774:
4770:
4765:
4761:
4757:
4754:
4751:
4739:
4736:
4720:
4717:
4701:
4700:
4659:
4658:
4657:
4656:
4603:
4602:
4601:
4600:
4599:
4598:
4597:
4596:
4595:
4594:
4593:
4592:
4530:
4529:
4528:
4527:
4526:
4483:
4481:
4470:
4467:
4464:
4461:
4458:
4446:
4443:
4440:
4436:
4433:
4429:
4426:
4416:
4397:
4395:
4388:
4386:
4383:
4367:
4359:
4341:
4340:
4339:
4338:
4337:
4336:
4247:
4246:
4245:
4244:
4198:
4197:
4196:
4195:
4184:
4181:
4178:
4175:
4172:
4160:
4157:
4154:
4150:
4147:
4143:
4140:
4127:
4126:
4125:
4124:
4095:
4047:
4044:
4029:
4028:
4027:
4026:
4025:
4024:
4014:Backinstadiums
4002:
4001:
4000:
3999:
3981:
3980:
3954:Backinstadiums
3949:
3946:
3945:
3944:
3919:
3916:
3915:
3914:
3913:
3912:
3911:
3910:
3896:
3875:
3837:
3825:
3793:
3792:
3771:
3728:
3725:
3694:
3693:
3692:
3691:
3690:
3689:
3688:
3687:
3686:
3685:
3684:
3683:
3682:
3681:
3680:
3679:
3620:
3619:
3618:
3617:
3616:
3615:
3614:
3613:
3612:
3611:
3597:
3592:Debits/Credits
3587:
3558:
3557:
3556:
3555:
3554:
3553:
3501:
3500:
3499:
3498:
3472:
3465:
3434:
3431:
3430:
3429:
3393:
3384:mathematician
3373:
3367:
3328:
3325:
3288:
3285:
3267:
3264:
3262:
3261:
3251:requested move
3245:
3244:
3218:
3217:
3216:
3215:
3190:
3189:
3130:
3129:
3095:
3094:
3093:
3092:
3091:
3090:
3089:
3088:
3053:
3052:
3051:
3050:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2998:
2939:
2913:
2912:
2911:
2910:
2889:
2888:
2867:
2866:
2865:
2864:
2863:
2862:
2861:
2860:
2800:
2799:
2778:
2777:
2776:
2741:
2724:
2703:
2690:
2689:
2668:Nobrainer move
2628:
2626:
2612:
2611:
2601:requested move
2595:
2593:
2590:
2585:
2584:Requested move
2582:
2581:
2580:
2567:
2566:
2565:
2564:
2563:
2562:
2535:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2477:
2476:
2446:
2445:
2440:
2435:
2426:
2425:
2414:
2407:
2400:
2387:
2384:
2368:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2328:
2325:
2308:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1900:
1899:
1879:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1837:
1834:
1823:Carl.bunderson
1786:
1783:
1771:84.173.223.235
1761:
1760:
1723:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1677:
1676:
1626:
1625:
1615:
1597:
1596:
1566:
1563:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1528:
1527:
1517:
1516:
1507:
1478:
1477:
1469:
1466:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1442:
1441:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1424:
1418:
1413:
1336:
1335:Minus numbers?
1333:
1310:
1309:
1274:
1271:
1257:
1256:
1248:
1245:
1224:
1223:
1219:
1204:
1203:
1200:
1192:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1132:
1119:
1079:
1076:
1073:
1053:
1050:
1047:
1002:
1001:
996:
991:
987:
986:
983:
980:
977:
973:
972:
967:
964:
959:
955:
954:
951:
948:
945:
941:
940:
935:
932:
927:
923:
922:
919:
916:
913:
909:
908:
905:
902:
899:
886:
885:
878:
870:
859:complex number
847:
846:
835:
834:
826:
825:
808:
805:
779:
778:
765:
764:
717:
716:
679:
638:signed numbers
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
620:
619:
573:
572:
564:
563:
547:
546:
540:
538:
537:
506:
505:
487:
486:
478:
477:
469:
468:
459:
458:
446:
438:
437:
432:
431:
430:
429:
415:
414:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
370:
369:
361:
360:
359:
358:
355:Chas zzz brown
340:
339:
338:
335:
328:
327:
320:
319:
312:
311:
308:
305:
294:Multiplication
290:
285:
264:
260:
259:
228:
203:
194:to a negative
181:
178:
175:
174:
171:
170:
167:
166:
155:
149:
148:
146:
129:the discussion
116:
115:
99:
87:
86:
78:
66:
65:
59:
37:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
5515:
5504:
5501:
5499:
5496:
5494:
5491:
5489:
5486:
5484:
5481:
5479:
5476:
5474:
5471:
5469:
5466:
5465:
5463:
5454:
5451:
5448:
5444:
5440:
5436:
5432:
5427:
5426:
5425:
5424:
5420:
5416:
5412:
5408:
5404:
5396:
5392:
5389:
5386:
5382:
5378:
5374:
5373:
5372:
5371:
5367:
5363:
5355:
5349:
5345:
5341:
5336:
5334:
5330:
5326:
5322:
5321:
5320:
5319:
5318:
5301:
5297:
5293:
5288:
5281:
5277:
5271:
5267:
5261:
5256:
5253:
5250:
5246:
5242:
5237:
5234:
5230:
5222:It’s because
5207:
5204:
5199:
5192:
5188:
5184:
5179:
5173:
5170:
5166:
5143:
5140:
5135:
5128:
5124:
5120:
5115:
5110:
5107:
5103:
5079:
5075:
5070:
5067:
5061:
5056:
5053:
5030:
5027:
5024:
5019:
5016:
4994:
4987:
4971:
4968:
4965:
4962:
4942:
4939:
4936:
4931:
4927:
4906:
4903:
4897:
4892:
4889:
4872:
4864:
4850:
4847:
4844:
4836:
4832:
4825:
4822:
4817:
4809:
4806:
4784:
4781:
4776:
4772:
4768:
4763:
4755:
4752:
4737:
4735:
4734:
4730:
4726:
4718:
4716:
4715:
4711:
4707:
4699:
4695:
4691:
4687:
4681:
4676:
4675:
4674:
4673:
4669:
4665:
4655:
4651:
4647:
4642:
4641:
4640:
4636:
4632:
4628:
4624:
4623:
4622:
4621:
4617:
4613:
4607:
4591:
4587:
4583:
4579:
4575:
4571:
4567:
4566:
4565:
4561:
4557:
4553:
4549:
4545:
4544:
4543:
4539:
4535:
4531:
4524:
4520:
4516:
4512:
4508:
4504:
4500:
4496:
4492:
4488:
4484:
4482:
4468:
4465:
4462:
4459:
4456:
4444:
4441:
4438:
4434:
4431:
4427:
4424:
4417:
4414:
4410:
4406:
4402:
4398:
4396:
4393:
4390:We define an
4389:
4387:
4384:
4382:
4381:
4380:
4379:
4376:
4372:
4368:
4364:
4360:
4357:
4353:
4349:
4348:
4347:
4346:
4345:
4344:
4343:
4342:
4335:
4331:
4327:
4323:
4319:
4314:
4313:
4312:
4308:
4304:
4299:
4298:
4297:
4293:
4289:
4284:
4280:
4275:
4274:
4273:
4272:
4268:
4264:
4259:
4256:
4252:
4242:
4238:
4234:
4230:
4226:
4222:
4218:
4214:
4210:
4206:
4202:
4201:
4200:
4199:
4182:
4179:
4176:
4173:
4170:
4158:
4155:
4152:
4148:
4145:
4141:
4138:
4131:
4130:
4129:
4128:
4122:
4118:
4114:
4110:
4106:
4102:
4101:
4100:
4099:
4098:
4093:
4092:
4088:
4084:
4078:
4074:
4073:
4069:
4065:
4061:
4057:
4052:
4043:
4042:
4038:
4034:
4023:
4019:
4015:
4011:
4008:
4007:
4006:
4005:
4004:
4003:
3998:
3994:
3990:
3985:
3984:
3983:
3982:
3979:
3975:
3971:
3966:
3965:
3964:
3963:
3959:
3955:
3947:
3943:
3939:
3935:
3931:
3927:
3922:
3921:
3917:
3909:
3905:
3901:
3897:
3894:
3893:
3892:
3888:
3884:
3880:
3876:
3874:
3871:
3868:
3864:
3858:
3853:
3852:
3851:
3847:
3843:
3838:
3835:
3831:
3826:
3822:
3818:
3815:I agree with
3814:
3813:
3812:
3811:
3807:
3803:
3797:
3791:
3788:
3785:
3781:
3777:
3772:
3770:
3766:
3762:
3758:
3754:
3750:
3746:
3745:
3744:
3743:
3739:
3735:
3726:
3724:
3723:
3719:
3715:
3709:
3708:
3704:
3700:
3678:
3674:
3670:
3666:
3665:
3664:
3660:
3656:
3652:
3651:
3650:
3646:
3642:
3637:
3632:
3631:
3630:
3629:
3628:
3627:
3626:
3625:
3624:
3623:
3622:
3621:
3610:
3606:
3602:
3598:
3595:
3593:
3588:
3585:
3581:
3580:
3579:
3575:
3571:
3566:
3565:
3564:
3563:
3562:
3561:
3560:
3559:
3552:
3548:
3544:
3540:
3536:
3535:
3534:
3530:
3526:
3522:
3518:
3514:
3510:
3505:
3504:
3503:
3502:
3497:
3494:
3491:
3487:
3486:
3485:
3481:
3477:
3473:
3470:
3466:
3463:
3459:
3458:
3457:
3456:
3452:
3448:
3442:
3440:
3432:
3428:
3424:
3420:
3416:
3415:
3414:
3413:
3409:
3405:
3401:
3397:
3391:
3387:
3383:
3379:
3372:
3368:
3366:
3364:
3360:
3356:
3352:
3346:
3342:
3338:
3334:
3326:
3324:
3323:
3319:
3315:
3311:
3308:
3303:
3301:
3296:
3294:
3286:
3284:
3282:
3278:
3274:
3273:86.177.83.238
3265:
3260:
3257:
3252:
3247:
3246:
3243:
3239:
3235:
3231:
3227:
3223:
3220:
3219:
3214:
3210:
3206:
3202:
3198:
3194:
3193:
3192:
3191:
3188:
3187:
3183:
3179:
3175:
3171:
3167:
3163:
3159:
3155:
3151:
3147:
3142:
3141:
3135:
3132:
3131:
3128:
3124:
3120:
3116:
3112:
3108:
3104:
3100:
3097:
3096:
3087:
3083:
3079:
3078:76.66.203.138
3074:
3073:
3072:
3068:
3064:
3059:
3058:
3057:
3056:
3055:
3054:
3049:
3045:
3041:
3037:
3033:
3029:
3025:
3020:
3019:
3018:
3014:
3010:
3006:
3003:
3002:
2997:
2993:
2989:
2985:
2981:
2977:
2973:
2972:
2971:
2967:
2963:
2959:
2955:
2951:
2947:
2943:
2940:
2938:
2934:
2930:
2926:
2922:
2918:
2915:
2914:
2909:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2893:
2892:
2891:
2890:
2887:
2883:
2879:
2878:76.66.203.138
2876:
2872:
2869:
2868:
2859:
2856:
2851:
2846:
2840:
2839:
2836:
2832:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2820:
2815:
2810:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2796:
2792:
2786:
2782:
2779:
2775:
2772:
2769:
2765:
2764:
2761:Merging into
2759:
2758:
2757:
2756:
2753:
2750:
2746:
2742:
2740:
2736:
2732:
2728:
2725:
2723:
2719:
2715:
2711:
2707:
2704:
2702:
2699:
2696:
2692:
2691:
2688:
2685:
2680:
2675:
2669:
2666:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2659:
2655:
2648:
2644:
2640:
2635:
2631:
2625:
2624:
2621:
2617:
2610:
2607:
2602:
2597:
2596:
2591:
2589:
2583:
2579:
2576:
2573:
2569:
2568:
2561:
2557:
2553:
2549:
2545:
2541:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2537:
2536:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2518:
2514:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2490:
2486:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2475:
2471:
2467:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2444:
2441:
2439:
2436:
2434:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2412:
2408:
2405:
2401:
2398:
2394:
2393:
2392:
2385:
2383:
2382:
2378:
2374:
2366:
2362:
2358:
2354:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2333:
2326:
2324:
2323:
2319:
2315:
2306:
2288:
2283:
2279:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2267:
2263:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2251:
2247:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2214:
2210:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2160:
2156:
2149:
2143:
2142:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2102:
2098:
2094:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2082:
2078:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2033:
2029:
2025:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2013:
2009:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1968:
1962:
1957:
1953:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1925:
1921:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1848:58.165.41.140
1845:
1835:
1833:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1801:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1784:
1782:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1734:24.176.17.147
1731:
1721:
1717:
1714:
1709:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1681:
1675:
1672:
1667:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1647:86.177.83.238
1644:
1636:
1635:
1632:
1624:
1621:
1616:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1606:
1601:
1595:
1592:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1582:
1576:
1573:
1570:
1564:
1562:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1552:217.140.96.21
1547:
1539:
1536:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1526:
1523:
1519:
1518:
1515:
1512:
1508:
1505:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1495:
1491:
1488:
1485:
1482:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1467:
1465:
1463:
1454:
1451:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1440:
1437:
1433:
1427:
1425:
1421:
1419:
1416:
1414:
1411:
1409:
1408:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1388:
1384:
1379:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1352:
1350:
1344:
1342:
1334:
1332:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1308:
1305:
1301:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1272:
1270:
1269:
1266:
1262:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1246:
1244:
1243:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1201:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1190:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1171:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1130:
1120:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1077:
1074:
1071:
1051:
1048:
1045:
1035:
1034:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1021:
1017:
1012:
1011:begin with).
1008:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
989:
988:
984:
981:
978:
975:
974:
971:
968:
965:
963:
960:
957:
956:
952:
949:
946:
943:
942:
939:
936:
933:
931:
928:
925:
924:
920:
917:
914:
911:
910:
906:
903:
900:
897:
896:
893:
891:
883:
879:
875:
874:partial order
871:
868:
864:
863:
862:
860:
856:
852:
845:
842:
837:
836:
832:
828:
827:
823:
818:
817:
816:
814:
806:
804:
802:
798:
793:
791:
787:
783:
776:
772:
767:
766:
762:
758:
754:
753:Signed number
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
733:Signed number
731:While I like
730:
729:
728:
726:
722:
714:
710:
706:
701:
697:
696:
695:
693:
689:
685:
678:
676:
670:
668:
663:
661:
657:
652:
650:
645:
643:
639:
628:
624:
623:
622:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
604:
603:
601:
600:Michael Hardy
597:
593:
589:
584:
582:
578:
570:
566:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
548:
543:
542:
541:
535:
531:
530:
529:
527:
523:
518:
516:
512:
503:
499:
498:
497:
495:
491:
484:
480:
479:
475:
471:
470:
466:
461:
460:
456:
452:
451:
450:
445:
443:
434:
433:
427:
423:
419:
418:
417:
416:
412:
408:
404:
403:
402:
400:
396:
392:
388:
378:
374:
373:
372:
371:
367:
363:
362:
356:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
346:
336:
333:
332:
331:
325:
324:
323:
317:
316:
315:
309:
306:
303:
302:
301:
299:
295:
291:
288:
284:
282:
277:
272:
270:
263:
257:
256:
255:
253:
248:
246:
242:
238:
234:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
202:
201:
197:
193:
187:
179:
164:
160:
159:High-priority
154:
151:
150:
147:
130:
126:
122:
121:
113:
107:
102:
100:
97:
93:
92:
88:
84:High‑priority
82:
79:
76:
72:
67:
63:
57:
49:
48:
38:
34:
29:
28:
19:
5430:
5415:Rick Norwood
5406:
5400:
5359:
5325:Rick Norwood
4878:
4870:
4741:
4722:
4706:Rick Norwood
4702:
4686:Rick Norwood
4664:Rick Norwood
4660:
4612:Rick Norwood
4608:
4604:
4577:
4573:
4569:
4522:
4518:
4514:
4510:
4506:
4502:
4498:
4494:
4490:
4486:
4412:
4408:
4404:
4400:
4391:
4374:
4370:
4362:
4355:
4351:
4321:
4317:
4282:
4263:Rick Norwood
4260:
4254:
4250:
4248:
4240:
4236:
4232:
4228:
4224:
4220:
4216:
4212:
4208:
4204:
4116:
4112:
4108:
4104:
4094:
4083:Rick Norwood
4079:
4075:
4059:
4055:
4053:
4049:
4033:Rick Norwood
4030:
3989:Rick Norwood
3968:concisely?
3951:
3929:
3925:
3833:
3820:
3817:Rick Norwood
3802:Rick Norwood
3798:
3794:
3779:
3775:
3734:Rick Norwood
3730:
3714:73.71.251.64
3710:
3699:73.71.251.64
3695:
3669:73.71.251.64
3641:73.71.251.64
3635:
3634:used as one
3591:
3590:
3570:73.71.251.64
3525:73.71.251.64
3520:
3516:
3508:
3468:
3461:
3447:73.71.251.64
3443:
3438:
3436:
3419:Double sharp
3399:
3395:
3389:
3375:
3349:— Preceding
3341:Exclusive or
3330:
3304:
3297:
3290:
3269:
3255:
3248:
3230:WP:PRECISION
3225:
3221:
3153:
3145:
3143:
3137:
3133:
3114:
3110:
3098:
3034:redirect to
3004:
2941:
2916:
2870:
2844:
2808:
2784:
2780:
2760:
2744:
2743:
2726:
2705:
2673:
2667:
2638:
2627:
2615:
2613:
2605:
2598:
2587:
2447:
2427:
2389:
2370:
2334:
2330:
2310:
2212:
2208:
2204:
2200:
2181:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2040:
1901:
1881:
1839:
1818:
1817:
1802:
1788:
1762:
1725:
1679:
1678:
1641:— Preceding
1637:
1627:
1602:
1598:
1579:ambiguous?--
1577:
1574:
1571:
1568:
1548:
1544:
1492:
1489:
1486:
1483:
1479:
1471:
1459:
1396:
1377:
1376:
1373:
1369:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1353:
1348:
1345:
1340:
1338:
1321:91.36.93.115
1311:
1291:
1276:
1258:
1250:
1229:
1225:
1205:
1194:
1036:
1028:
1024:
1013:
1009:
1005:
998:
993:
969:
961:
937:
929:
889:
887:
867:linear order
854:
850:
848:
813:66.245.1.229
810:
796:
794:
780:
761:Toby Bartels
718:
713:Toby Bartels
708:
680:
675:Toby Bartels
671:
664:
660:Toby Bartels
653:
646:
642:Toby Bartels
635:
608:User:Evercat
585:
574:
554:or even the
539:
519:
513:article. --
507:
488:
447:
439:
384:
341:
329:
321:
313:
297:
292:
289:
286:
275:
273:
265:
261:
249:
231:— Preceding
229:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
195:
191:
188:
183:
180:Through 2003
158:
118:
62:WikiProjects
45:
5403:mathematics
5377:Roman Egypt
4627:unary minus
4517:. That is,
4283:one type of
4235:. That is,
3877:To "take a
3867:Paul August
3830:Brahmagupta
3784:Paul August
3490:Paul August
3201:Number line
3154:Number line
3150:Number line
3140:Number line
3138:Merge with
2695:Paul August
2643:Vegaswikian
2572:Paul August
1862:"Negating"
1842:—Preceding
1765:—Preceding
1728:—Preceding
1689:65.80.7.142
1315:—Preceding
1146:—Preceding
1123:instead of
526:Minesweeper
391:Nonnegative
318:-5 = -1 × 5
304:-1 × 5 = -5
134:Mathematics
125:mathematics
81:Mathematics
5462:Categories
5340:R. S. Shaw
4680:R. S. Shaw
4582:R. S. Shaw
4534:R. S. Shaw
4064:R. S. Shaw
3840:there! --
3747:a<b is
3727:Definition
3584:accounting
3386:Diophantus
3205:Born2cycle
3178:Born2cycle
3024:Lesser ape
2854:Talk to me
2818:Talk to me
2714:Diego Moya
2693:Support.
2683:Talk to me
2616:page moved
2422:positivity
1806:R. S. Shaw
1620:R. S. Shaw
1511:R. S. Shaw
1436:R. S. Shaw
1371:confused.
1280:deeptrivia
1273:Diophantus
1170:Inequality
592:negativity
577:negativity
552:negativity
287:Removing:
254:to work:
5447:jacobolus
5385:jacobolus
4690:Kautilya3
4303:Kautilya3
3900:Kautilya3
3857:Kautilya3
3842:Kautilya3
3655:Kautilya3
3601:Kautilya3
3543:Kautilya3
3476:Kautilya3
3283:QuadGirl
3195:In fact,
3028:Great ape
2845:D O N D E
2809:D O N D E
2674:D O N D E
2620:GTBacchus
2043:Bo Jacoby
2024:Thenub314
1631:Laikalynx
1535:CompuChip
1367:phrases.
1360:3,060,000
1278:numbers.
1020:"positif"
801:AxelBoldt
747:, and to
50:is rated
5445:. ..." –
4578:opposite
4485:And so,
4375:opposite
4371:negative
4363:opposite
4352:opposite
4279:negation
4203:And so,
4119:. By an
3926:won't go
3834:unifying
3824:history.
3796:answer.
3636:possible
3519:(2007):
3469:relative
3404:Marasama
3351:unsigned
3203:too. --
3119:Jowa fan
3115:positive
3111:negative
3103:positive
2896:WP:TITLE
2849:groovily
2829:Link to
2813:groovily
2789:Link to
2678:groovily
2639:Relisted
2411:negation
2314:Chappell
1864:Jowa fan
1844:unsigned
1804:title. -
1767:unsigned
1730:unsigned
1697:contribs
1685:unsigned
1662:sign. —
1643:unsigned
1522:Melchoir
1450:Melchoir
1387:Melchoir
1317:unsigned
1304:Melchoir
1265:Melchoir
1160:contribs
1148:unsigned
1016:positive
982:negative
979:negative
966:negative
934:positive
918:positive
915:positive
898:Element
880:several
851:positive
797:numerals
569:Dwheeler
465:Dwheeler
298:negation
233:unsigned
4509:. Thus
4227:. Thus
3821:imagine
3388:in the
3314:Tobby72
3234:Andrewa
3222:Support
3146:merging
3099:Comment
3040:Amakuru
3005:Comment
2988:Amakuru
2962:Amakuru
2942:Comment
2929:Amakuru
2745:Support
2727:Support
2706:Support
1986:Katzmik
1935:Katzmik
1903:Katzmik
1884:Katzmik
1791:FilipeS
1750:FilipeS
1618:"-". -
1605:Niels Ø
1581:Niels Ø
1494:RandomP
1462:decimal
1222:values)
1030:RandomP
976:(-1,-1)
822:Henrygb
745:Integer
725:Tarquin
705:Integer
692:Mintguy
684:numbers
627:Evercat
426:Evercat
399:Evercat
377:Tarquin
345:Tarquin
281:Tarquin
269:Ed Poor
200:doshell
161:on the
52:B-class
5435:number
5411:number
4955:Solve:
4631:Certes
4556:Certes
4326:Certes
4288:Certes
3970:Certes
3928:" or "
3883:Certes
3863:Certes
3761:Certes
3757:Kelvin
3398:or is
3380:, the
3174:Number
2986:). —
2871:Oppose
2203:times
2172:times
1819:Oppose
1423:mean."
1364:17,000
990:(1,-1)
970:varies
958:(0,-1)
938:varies
757:Number
654:I was
586:To me
522:number
196:number
192:number
58:scale.
4318:could
4121:axiom
4103:"Let
3439:three
3382:Greek
3310:edits
2978:with
2771:Adler
2752:Adler
2592:Move?
2216:zero.
2145:-1·a.
1748:Yes.
1707:Jaxad
1665:Jaxad
1152:HSNie
1092:HSNie
944:(0,0)
926:(1,0)
912:(1,1)
877:used.
759:. --
723:? --
640:! --
524:? --
409:? --
393:into
39:This
5443:zero
5419:talk
5405:, a
5366:talk
5344:talk
5329:talk
4729:talk
4710:talk
4694:talk
4668:talk
4650:talk
4635:talk
4616:talk
4586:talk
4560:talk
4538:talk
4399:Let
4330:talk
4307:talk
4292:talk
4267:talk
4087:talk
4068:talk
4037:talk
4018:talk
3993:talk
3974:talk
3958:talk
3938:talk
3904:talk
3887:talk
3846:talk
3806:talk
3765:talk
3738:talk
3718:talk
3703:talk
3673:talk
3659:talk
3645:talk
3605:talk
3574:talk
3547:talk
3529:talk
3480:talk
3451:talk
3423:talk
3408:talk
3400:A.D.
3396:B.C.
3359:talk
3318:talk
3307:this
3300:page
3277:talk
3238:talk
3209:talk
3182:talk
3176:. --
3168:and
3123:talk
3107:sign
3082:talk
3067:talk
3063:Dmcq
3044:talk
3013:talk
3009:Dmcq
2992:talk
2966:talk
2956:and
2933:talk
2919:but
2904:talk
2900:Dmcq
2882:talk
2833:and
2793:and
2781:Move
2768:Hans
2749:Hans
2735:talk
2731:Dmcq
2718:talk
2658:talk
2647:talk
2556:talk
2526:talk
2522:Dmcq
2511:The
2497:talk
2487:and
2470:talk
2466:Dmcq
2454:talk
2404:sign
2377:talk
2373:Dmcq
2357:talk
2353:Dmcq
2342:talk
2338:Dmcq
2318:talk
2282:talk
2266:talk
2262:Dmcq
2250:talk
2191:talk
2187:Dmcq
2159:talk
2121:talk
2117:Dmcq
2097:talk
2093:Dmcq
2081:talk
2064:talk
2060:Dmcq
2047:talk
2028:talk
2012:talk
1990:talk
1976:talk
1972:Dmcq
1956:talk
1939:talk
1924:talk
1907:talk
1888:talk
1868:talk
1852:talk
1827:talk
1810:talk
1795:talk
1775:talk
1754:talk
1738:talk
1722:math
1712:0127
1693:talk
1670:0127
1651:talk
1591:Zero
1556:talk
1397:that
1378:Even
1349:verb
1341:rant
1325:talk
1284:talk
1239:Talk
1212:imho
1177:talk
1173:Dmcq
1156:talk
1113:talk
1109:Dmcq
1096:talk
947:zero
853:and
841:Foof
831:Taku
790:Taku
775:Taku
739:and
667:Taku
656:bold
649:Taku
616:Taku
581:Taku
560:Taku
534:Taku
515:Taku
474:Taku
455:Taku
442:Taku
411:Taku
389:and
241:talk
153:High
5450:(t)
5441:to
5439:sum
5388:(t)
4943:125
4893:125
4646:Hjm
4554:).
4451:and
4322:are
4165:and
3932:".
3376:In
3312:).
3253:.
2783:to
2654:Jim
2552:Jim
2493:Jim
2450:Jim
2420:or
2278:CBM
2246:CBM
2211:or
2180:or
2155:CBM
2077:CBM
2008:CBM
1952:CBM
1920:CBM
1235:MFH
1122:-->
440:--
276:did
5464::
5421:)
5368:)
5346:)
5331:)
5254:−
5235:−
5171:−
5144:25
5108:−
5054:−
5017:−
5007:.
4969:−
4940:−
4890:−
4851:64
4848:−
4826:−
4807:−
4785:25
4753:−
4731:)
4712:)
4696:)
4670:)
4652:)
4637:)
4618:)
4588:)
4562:)
4540:)
4505:=
4503:y′
4497:+
4493:=
4491:y′
4489:+
4469:0.
4409:y′
4356:an
4332:)
4309:)
4294:)
4269:)
4243:."
4223:=
4221:y′
4215:+
4211:=
4209:y′
4207:+
4183:0.
4113:y′
4089:)
4070:)
4056:an
4039:)
4020:)
4012:--
3995:)
3976:)
3960:)
3940:)
3906:)
3889:)
3848:)
3808:)
3776:me
3767:)
3740:)
3720:)
3705:)
3675:)
3661:)
3647:)
3607:)
3576:)
3549:)
3531:)
3509:is
3482:)
3453:)
3425:)
3410:)
3392:.
3361:)
3320:)
3279:)
3240:)
3211:)
3184:)
3164:,
3160:,
3136::
3125:)
3084:)
3069:)
3046:)
3015:)
2994:)
2968:)
2935:)
2906:)
2884:)
2737:)
2720:)
2712:.
2660:)
2641:.
2636:—
2632:→
2603:.
2558:)
2550:.
2528:)
2499:)
2472:)
2456:)
2379:)
2359:)
2344:)
2320:)
2280:·
2268:)
2248:·
2193:)
2157:·
2123:)
2099:)
2079:·
2066:)
2053:.
2049:)
2030:)
2010:·
1992:)
1978:)
1954:·
1941:)
1922:·
1909:)
1890:)
1870:)
1854:)
1829:)
1812:)
1797:)
1777:)
1756:)
1740:)
1695:•
1653:)
1558:)
1407::
1347:a
1343:.
1327:)
1302:.
1286:)
1263:.
1237::
1233:—
1179:)
1162:)
1158:•
1131:≥
1115:)
1098:)
1075:≤
1049:≤
872:a
865:a
820:--
545:-.
496:.
267:--
243:)
5417:(
5383:–
5364:(
5342:(
5327:(
5302:y
5298:x
5294:1
5289:=
5282:y
5278:x
5272:0
5268:x
5262:=
5257:y
5251:0
5247:x
5243:=
5238:y
5231:x
5208:2
5205:1
5200:=
5193:3
5189:8
5185:1
5180:=
5174:3
5167:8
5141:1
5136:=
5129:2
5125:5
5121:1
5116:=
5111:2
5104:5
5080:y
5076:x
5071:i
5068:=
5062:y
5057:x
5031:i
5028:2
5025:=
5020:4
4995:i
4972:5
4966:=
4963:n
4937:=
4932:3
4928:n
4907:5
4904:=
4898:3
4845:=
4842:)
4837:3
4833:4
4829:(
4823:=
4818:3
4814:)
4810:4
4804:(
4782:=
4777:2
4773:5
4769:=
4764:2
4760:)
4756:5
4750:(
4727:(
4708:(
4692:(
4682::
4678:@
4666:(
4648:(
4633:(
4614:(
4584:(
4558:(
4550:(
4536:(
4525:.
4523:x
4519:y
4515:x
4511:y
4507:y
4499:y
4495:x
4487:x
4466:=
4463:y
4460:+
4457:x
4445:,
4442:0
4439:=
4435:′
4432:y
4428:+
4425:x
4413:x
4405:y
4401:x
4328:(
4305:(
4290:(
4265:(
4255:y
4251:x
4241:x
4237:y
4233:x
4229:y
4225:y
4217:y
4213:x
4205:x
4180:=
4177:y
4174:+
4171:x
4159:,
4156:0
4153:=
4149:′
4146:y
4142:+
4139:x
4117:x
4109:y
4105:x
4085:(
4066:(
4035:(
4016:(
3991:(
3972:(
3956:(
3936:(
3924:"
3902:(
3885:(
3870:☎
3859::
3855:@
3844:(
3804:(
3787:☎
3780:x
3763:(
3736:(
3716:(
3701:(
3671:(
3657:(
3643:(
3603:(
3572:(
3545:(
3527:(
3493:☎
3478:(
3449:(
3421:(
3406:(
3357:(
3316:(
3275:(
3236:(
3207:(
3180:(
3121:(
3080:(
3065:(
3042:(
3011:(
2990:(
2964:(
2931:(
2902:(
2880:(
2733:(
2716:(
2698:☎
2656:(
2645:(
2575:☎
2554:(
2524:(
2495:(
2468:(
2452:(
2413:.
2375:(
2355:(
2340:(
2316:(
2284:)
2276:(
2264:(
2252:)
2244:(
2213:b
2209:a
2205:b
2201:a
2189:(
2182:b
2178:a
2174:b
2170:a
2161:)
2153:(
2119:(
2095:(
2083:)
2075:(
2062:(
2045:(
2026:(
2014:)
2006:(
1988:(
1974:(
1958:)
1950:(
1937:(
1926:)
1918:(
1905:(
1886:(
1866:(
1850:(
1825:(
1808:(
1793:(
1773:(
1752:(
1736:(
1691:(
1649:(
1554:(
1356:s
1323:(
1282:(
1175:(
1154:(
1111:(
1094:(
1078:0
1072:0
1052:a
1046:b
999:?
994:?
962:?
930:?
890:R
709:Z
494:0
239:(
165:.
64::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.