Template talk:Arithmetic operations

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arithmetic operations template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Untitled

This talk page is empty, so hopefully the discussion isn't somewhere else. Assuming that it's here, here is what I just did and why, as well as what I'd like to do but didn't:

‘modulo’ isn't even a noun, so it can't be correct there; I used ‘remainder’. Arguably this operation should also use ‘modulus’ instead of ‘divisor’, but I'm uncertain, so I didn't change that. Both are correct; the question is which is better.
While the terminology for the logarithm was also technically correct, it's like writing ‘sum’ for ‘minuend’ and vice versa. So I put in alternative terminology which I think is definitely more appropriate. There might be something better than ‘antilogarithm’, but I'm sure that ‘logarithm’ is the best word where I put it.
There ought to be better terms than ‘nth root’ and ‘logarithm’ as names of the operations themselves; they are really names of the results of the operations. We need terms that are analogous to ‘addition’, when instead we have terms that are analogous to ‘sum’. However, I don't know anything other than ‘taking roots’ and ‘taking logarithms’, which seem kind of silly, so I didn't change anything there.

—Toby Bartels (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about “root extraction” (and maybe “logarithmation” if we also speak of “modulation”)? -- Zygmunt Zzzyzzyzkoff (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplicand and multiplier

Interestingly, this template shows “multiplicand × multiplier”, while I see the reverse (“multiplier × multiplicand”) elsewhere. I personally think this might be related to how you pronounce it. Considering the meanings of words, it is natural to say “multiplier times multiplicand”, but “multiplicand multiplied by multiplier”.

People normally pronounce “×” as “times” today, and people probably should also write only “multiplicand”. This avoids the problem :-).

—Adah1972 (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was also confused. But according to the Common Core State Standards Initiative, product = multiplier * multiplicand, not multiplicand * multiplier. And since people also normally pronounce “×” as “times” today, I changed the template accordingly. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I found a reference: "With multiplication you have a multiplicand (written second) multiplied by a multiplier (written first)." See Keith Devlin (January 2011). "What Exactly is Multiplication?". Retrieved October 30, 2015. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The multiplier is on the left and the multiplicand is on the right. I've fixed the template. —

Q

uantling (talk | contribs) 02:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About centering the text

Is there a reason why you don't use text-align: center;? — Tentacles^{Talk or ✉ mailto:Tentacles} 22:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes on 14 June 2016

I made two changes today (separate edits) to this template:

1. I added two alternate but valid terms for the result of a division operation:

The most correct name in mathematics for one quantity divided by another is a "rational expression" but this can and often is shortened to simply "ratio".
The most common name used in mathematics (by the general population) for a rational number is to call it a "fraction".

All of 3 these terms are correct names for the result of a division operation, and should be displayed here just as we display alternate terms (dividend -vs- numerator, divisor -vs- denominator) for the other side of the equation.

2. I changed "Modulation" to "Modulo" for several reasons:

I looked extensively and could find no reliable mathematical reference that calls this operation a "modulation".
The word "modulation" does not appear anywhere in the modulo operation article.
The word "modulo" does not appear anywear in the modulation article.
There is no WP:DAB definition for modulation pointing to the modulo operation article.

In short this usage of the word modulation is UNVERIFIABLE and therefor is challenged and removed per WP:V.

PS: I also added a vertical spacer to the Division section in-between the two frac expressions to make them easier to read. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 02:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming this Template?

The current name of this template is "Calculation results". However, I argue a name such as "Lexicon of elementary arithmetic operations" might be more correct and to the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verheyen Vincent (talk • contribs) 00:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unwieldly

This template is really big and bulky, especially on mobile. It seems that the "broad sense" and "strict sense" create much of the bulk I propose removing these as: 1. Anyone seeing the two equations "augend+addend" and "addend+addend" will realize that addend can be used multiple ways, and 2. It's a small, pedantic point to make, especially for a template used on basic articles.Brirush (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 4 years later. I stripped the broad and strict sense parentheticals and bumped the font. Efbrazil (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Base, Exponent and Power

Is there any reference to the naming convention? The word "power" in "base^exponent = power" puzzles me. Why is the result of an exponentiation called power? A rough search on google indicates that power is actually synonymous to exponent. I am sincerely troubled. 49.50.236.225 (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)LuciferAmadeus[reply]

Removed "mod" here due to edit war in SV Wikipedia

> NH (Removing "mod": In mathematical contexts, the process of obtaining the remainder in

> integer division is seldom or never written this way. In some programming languages

> it is, but this is not a template for computing-related articles.)

Removed "MOD" here and locked the template in SV Wikipedia. Definitely bad idea. I vote for re-adding "MOD". Taylor 49 (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The operator "mod" is seldom or never used (written in this form) in mathematical context, which is the kind of articles this template is used for. Even the editor who once added it to the template, User:VladikVP, seems to have had his/her doubts [1]. Note the article modulo operator is not a mathematics article but computer related, and does not include this template. /NH (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the template uses table code rather than {{Sidebar}} because the content of each heading uses two columns (one from beginning to the equal sign, and one for what follows the equal sign) and to allow the equal signs to align vertically. The template is tagged: "This template should be converted to a standardized format using Template:Sidebar." Are columns possible in a Sidebar content section / is colspan variable in sidebar content headings? If not, the tag should be removed and a comment should be added to the documentation (and a hidden comment should probably be added at the top). Hyacinth (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

done. Frietjes (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

term + term = sum

According to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Addition#addend, addend has term as synonym.

I understand term is a very generic term. However I have encountered usage where it is used in the sense of addend: e.g.

Factoring x² - 2x - 24 can be expressed as (x + a)(x + b) where a and b are:

- terms of -2 (meaning a + b = -2),

- factors of -24 (meaning a * b = -24)

I support adding term+term=sum to the entries in the Addition section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:1008:207:11C8:1DB8:2F26:F5DA (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, also for subtraction. D.Lazard (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exponentiation

Exponentiation seems to have some trouble with this statement: base^exponent = power. It says that the result of exponentiation is the power which is far from true. In fact, the exponent is the power and vice versa. The result of exponentiation has to be the product. Truth be told, this might confuse young people as well as non-native speakers. Thus, I suggest changing this image. As the matter of fact, the core article seems to be fine [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zomos (talk • contribs) 09:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]