Talk:Modulo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was actually a reasonable page here, not restricted to modular arithmetic, before it was a made a redirect in February 2004 (for the second time) ...

Charles Matthews 02:41, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is true. Many of the links now pointing at this page use the word modulo in a way that is NOT about modular arithmetic, and would be incomprehensible if the only explanation known to the reader were the latter page. I'm hoping that will be considered a sufficient reason not to redirect this page again. Michael Hardy 18:43, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The material that was removed in February (which was about colloquial uses of the word) was safely incorporated at the end of Modular arithmetic. However, many of the latter parts of that article could profitably be brought back here. -- Toby Bartels 08:10, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article misses the point. When mathematicians say modulo A is B modulo C, we mean that A and B are in the same equivalence class under some equivalence relation derived in some way from C. The only thing that is vague is how to get the equivalence relation from C. Billlion 16:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But the locution is also used colloquially when there is no well-defined equivalence relation, thus: "This research paper is finished modulo the refereeing process." Michael Hardy 19:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Modulo/Modulus Merger

I think these 2 dismabiguation pages could reasonably be merged. A lot of (most?) people don't have a clue what the difference might be. The combined page will not be so big as to be unduly taxing to the reader. Ewlyahoocom 09:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with a merger. The meanings at modulo are all highly related, originating in modular arithmetic. The meanings at modulus are very different among themselves, and the ones at modulo. I think this is a natural setting to have the closely related meanings on a separate page, modulo, and with the "big picture" containing a lot of other things at modulus. I think the merged page would be too big for a disambiguation, and the reader would have trouble navigating all the different meanings, some related, and some not. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Oleg. Etymologically, these are merely two cases (nominative and ablative, I think) of the same Latin noun, sincere in English does not simply mean "without wax", although the etymology suggests it does, and similarly modulo has taken on a life of its own. Michael Hardy 01:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you've forgotten what disambiguation pages are for: helping the user find the article they're looking for -- they're not supposed to contain new information. Below I've outlined what the cleaned-up pages might look like: there is some overlap but not too much. However many of the pages the reader is supposedly "disambiguating" to either don't mention the term or only mention it in passing (some do reference a similar term Module (mathematics), is it related?) Perhaps what you're really saying then is that you don't think one (or both) of these pages should be disambiguation pages? Ewlyahoocom 05:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modulo

[edit] Modulus

Then modulo shouldn't be a disambiguation page, rather a math page on its own, explaining briefly the chief usage as in modular arithmetic, and its derivived meanings. So, will removing the disambig tag solve this problem? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/d/Talk%7EModulo_4d64.html"