84:
421:
usually refers to something subtly different (the summand considered as a function of the index, rather than a particular individual term), and I have never seen "addend" in a research article. I suspect that this article was written by a logician that is so deeply embedded in their branch of mathematics that they never read research articles from other branches (which is of course fair) so assume that all other professional mathematicians use the word "term" like they do (which is not fair).
74:
53:
22:
331:
401:(b) If we rewrite the first formula as 12 + 8x + 4 – 6x, we see that the associative property of addition has been applied to promote equivalence, essentially adding a predicate of (=) to make true: -6x + 12 + 8x + 4 = 12 + 8x + 4 – 6x. In either case, whether multiplying by -1 or applying the associative property, an operation has been performed.
564:
editing and don't quite grasp all the regulations yet). I bought my copy on amazon for about 8 bucks, I was not the original author that included it as a reference, I just noticed that the previous version was did not match my background knowledge and was curious about the exact language of the source.
583:
I think, literally quoting a few sentences is ok here. In another discussion, I uploaded a photo of a book page under a "fair use" rationale, and learned that it will be deleted after about a week, anyway. As for the "1-t" example: I understand "X is bounded by Y signs" to mean "X" should have a "Y"
539:
I have to apologize for reverting your edit without discussing here first. Unfortunately, I cannot access the book you cited. However, I'm still convinced that my reasons given in the edit summary are correct: "t" is a term in "1+t" and in "1-t" (you wouldn't challenge that, would you?), although it
391:
1. In elementary formulas of the format “a – b”, the minus sign is an operator and the two terms are “a” and “b”, the “a” being the minuend and “b” being the subtrahend. 2. To change the sign of the subtrahend (thus inverting the operator) a multiplication is required, that being the product of the
591:
I have to admit that, when I used "elementary", I didn't think too much about its possible meanings. Also, I am not familiar with the US education system. If the word "elementary" can be misleading, what about "applied" instead? This would also cover e.g. physicists' and engineers' idioms like "in
516:
After no response in talk for a week I updated the section to match the referenced source. This section was then changed again, but without a new reference, the new text does not match the reference. I've undone the change pending discussion and/or identifying of a source to validate the change.
563:
Whether t is a term in 1-t is contested. -t could be considered the term. However rereading the source I don't see a discrepancy with including "or negative signs", (am I allowed to just directly quote the book in here? Is there a place I can upload a screenshot for others reference? I'm new to
567:
I do disagree with your assertion that terms being related to "+" are an elementary school concept. I can agree with "elementary" as in basic, but in US education the term "term" is first assessed in the 6th grade which is often placed as secondary education in middle school. Additionally the
420:
Using "term" to mean "summand" is common not only in elementary mathematics, and not only for polynomials. I think most professional mathematicians would usually use the word "term" in the context of a series (even of much more complicated things than monomials). "Summand" is very unusual, and
498:
This section is very incorrect. I've even bought the referenced book because it was so incorrect I had to see what type of person would publish this information. Turns out the book is correct, and nothing mentioned in this section is written in the book.
548:, citing Hilbert's famous remark). The meaning of "term" as being related somehow to the name "+" is found only in elementary school, and in applied sciences when they employ e.g. real or complex numbers. -
544:, and I thought (and still think) I added it. I reverted your removal of "elementary" because it is common understanding in mathematics that names don't matter (a fairly good explanation can be found at
611:"bounded" was specifically used in the book, but I see your point. I'm out of town for the weekend, how about on Monday I post the exact section from the book, and we can continue from there?
140:
428:
Most importantly, include this meaning in the lead section. Most links to this article are almost certainly for this usage, so it's very confusing that it's not in the lead.
588:
right to it. Other examples where my intuitive understanding of "term" (and I guess, yours, too) deviates from the literal definition are "1+t<u" and "x-(t+2)".
388:
3p + 2 +8p – 6 +5x. In this equation, the terms are 3p, 2, 8p, 6, and 5x. This is at odds with the example cited. Why should the term should be "6" and not "-6"?
481:) "is a series with a constant ratio between successive terms". Another good example would be the Fourier series, where each term is a trigonometric function.
669:
130:
664:
626:
In the next week, I may be offline for a few days. If you intend to upload a non-free image, you'd do me a favor if you defer that a little bit. -
106:
169:
395:
If we apply the standard set by the example to the first formula, we would see that to maintain equivalence would require the following –
502:
I would suggest replacing entire "elementary math" section with "In mathematics, terms are expressions that are bounded by plus signs."
351:
265:
The catch is that you don't need such predicates in mathlogic. The reason to consider such constructs a single predicate is based on
434:
Acknowledge that this is not the technically correct use of the word, but that it is the common usage outside of mathematical logic.
97:
58:
385:-6x + 12 + 8x + 4. In this equation, no would argue that the terms are -6x, 12, 8x, and 4; and that the constants are 12 and 4.
226:
33:
443:
Add a couple of examples in the first section, and contrast with the word "factor". A good one would be something like
431:
Remove references to "elementary mathematics". Perhaps rename the first section to something like "terms in a series".
229:
rather than link to the weird article "multigrade operator"; a predicate models a relation not a function/operator.
645:
631:
601:
553:
364:
317:
489:
392:
subtrahend and -1. The value of the subtrahend is changed by this step and the new term would then become “-b”.
616:
573:
522:
507:
173:
21:
545:
266:
612:
569:
534:
518:
503:
641:
627:
597:
549:
360:
313:
39:
406:
83:
485:
248:
165:
477:). Then mention some standard series such as geometric series, which (quoting the first sentence of
283:
402:
354:
for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
309:
291:
274:
256:
234:
212:
89:
73:
52:
478:
223:
244:
465:) and the right hand side has four terms each containing two factors (e.g. the first term
453:
where the left hand side has two factors each containing two terms (e.g. the first factor
188:
222:
Apparently Quine considered such predicates to formalize ambiguity in natural languages
658:
541:
287:
270:
252:
230:
208:
540:
is nowhere "bounded by plus signs". So obviously
Schwartzman should be taken with a
398:(a) (-1) * 6 + 12 + 8x + 4. This introduces a new term (-1) and a new operator (*).
440:
Remove the obscure list of terms (minuend and subtrahend!?) from the first section.
343:
225:. Anyway, if this flavor is notable enough, it should be covered in the article on
202:
Has anyone heard of such things being useful in some logic(s)? I'm referring to
102:
185:
79:
382:" is incorrect. The terms should be 6, 3x, and 2. Rationale is as follows -
286:
did consider predicates on strings seriously after Quine's proposal.
649:
635:
620:
605:
577:
557:
526:
511:
493:
410:
368:
321:
295:
278:
260:
238:
216:
191:
177:
162:
why the TERM is the basic and indivisible element of an inference?
325:
15:
568:
concept of terms is very important throughout algebra.
380:
For example, in 6 + 3x − 2, 6, 3x, and −2 are all terms.
596:
because it is very small". Would that be ok for you? -
437:
Remove the requirement that the series be a polynomial.
347:
338:
205:
203:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
312:, as there is no difference between both notions.
416:Objection to language in "elementary mathematics"
8:
19:
329:
163:
47:
546:Foundations of geometry#Axiomatic systems
640:I'm online again. Thanks for waiting. -
592:this expression we can neglect the term
336:Text and/or other creative content from
49:
7:
308:I suggest to join this article with
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
424:So I suggest these modifications:
14:
670:Mid-priority mathematics articles
247:. I suppose someone could create
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
665:Start-Class mathematics articles
118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
82:
72:
51:
20:
304:Join with "Term_(mathematics)"?
184:It isn’t. Why do you think so?—
135:This article has been rated as
227:predicate (mathematical logic)
1:
296:01:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
279:16:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
261:16:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
239:16:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
217:16:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
494:09:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
411:12:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
378:I believe this statement, "
686:
527:18:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
512:21:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
198:Variable arity predicates?
178:07:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
369:19:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
346:with . The former page's
342:was copied or moved into
192:10:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
650:19:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
322:11:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
141:project's priority scale
636:18:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
621:15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
606:20:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
578:19:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
558:07:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
98:WikiProject Mathematics
449:(a+b)(c+d)=ac+ad+bc+bd
267:philosophy of language
28:This article is rated
249:multigrade predicate
243:An example is given
121:mathematics articles
352:provide attribution
374:Untitled section 2
339:term (mathematics)
310:Term_(mathematics)
90:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
358:
357:
180:
168:comment added by
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
677:
642:Jochen Burghardt
628:Jochen Burghardt
598:Jochen Burghardt
550:Jochen Burghardt
538:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
450:
361:Jochen Burghardt
341:
333:
332:
326:
314:Jochen Burghardt
158:Untitled section
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
685:
684:
680:
679:
678:
676:
675:
674:
655:
654:
532:
486:Quietbritishjim
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
448:
418:
376:
337:
330:
306:
200:
160:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
683:
681:
673:
672:
667:
657:
656:
653:
652:
638:
613:Factchecker170
609:
608:
589:
570:Factchecker170
561:
560:
535:Factchecker170
519:Factchecker170
504:Factchecker170
483:
482:
451:
445:
444:
441:
438:
435:
432:
429:
417:
414:
375:
372:
356:
355:
350:now serves to
334:
305:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
281:
263:
199:
196:
195:
194:
170:112.210.145.60
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
682:
671:
668:
666:
663:
662:
660:
651:
647:
643:
639:
637:
633:
629:
625:
624:
623:
622:
618:
614:
607:
603:
599:
595:
590:
587:
582:
581:
580:
579:
575:
571:
565:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:grain of salt
536:
531:
530:
529:
528:
524:
520:
514:
513:
509:
505:
500:
496:
495:
491:
487:
480:
452:
447:
446:
442:
439:
436:
433:
430:
427:
426:
425:
422:
415:
413:
412:
408:
404:
399:
396:
393:
389:
386:
383:
381:
373:
371:
370:
366:
362:
353:
349:
345:
340:
335:
328:
327:
324:
323:
319:
315:
311:
303:
297:
293:
289:
285:
282:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
241:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
221:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
206:
204:
197:
193:
190:
187:
183:
182:
181:
179:
175:
171:
167:
157:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
610:
593:
585:
566:
562:
515:
501:
497:
484:
479:that article
469:has factors
423:
419:
400:
397:
394:
390:
387:
384:
379:
377:
359:
344:term (logic)
307:
201:
164:— Preceding
161:
137:Mid-priority
136:
96:
62:Mid‑priority
40:WikiProjects
269:arguments.
112:Mathematics
103:mathematics
59:Mathematics
30:Start-class
659:Categories
584:both left
457:has terms
284:Some guys
288:Tijfo098
271:Tijfo098
253:Tijfo098
231:Tijfo098
209:Tijfo098
166:unsigned
403:MrSteeb
348:history
139:on the
36:scale.
646:talk
632:talk
617:talk
602:talk
574:talk
554:talk
523:talk
508:talk
490:talk
473:and
461:and
407:talk
365:talk
318:talk
292:talk
275:talk
257:talk
245:here
235:talk
213:talk
186:Emil
174:talk
586:and
455:a+b
131:Mid
661::
648:)
634:)
619:)
604:)
576:)
556:)
525:)
510:)
492:)
467:ac
409:)
367:)
320:)
294:)
277:)
259:)
251:.
237:)
215:)
207:.
189:J.
176:)
644:(
630:(
615:(
600:(
594:x
572:(
552:(
537::
533:@
521:(
506:(
488:(
475:c
471:a
463:b
459:a
405:(
363:(
316:(
290:(
273:(
255:(
233:(
211:(
172:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
