Talk:Ordinal number
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Ordinal number has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
 |
|||||
| Mathematics grading: |  GA Class |
High Importance | Field: Foundations, logic, and set theory | ||
[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 05:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Division undefinable?
From the article:
One can define addition, multiplication, and exponentiation on ordinals, but not subtraction or division.
This seems to be contradicted by the MathWorld article on ordinals[1], which gives as an example:
where r is a real number. How is this to be explained? Simões (talk/contribs) 05:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- My first reaction was, in general, don't be surprised if you see nonsense on MathWorld. That's maybe a little unfair; their actual common sin is more promoting neologisms as though they were standard usage, which I guess isn't quite as bad as actual false statements.
- In this case, though, there's nothing wrong with what they actually wrote. You need to look at it a little closer. That isn't a fraction sign, and r is presumably not an (arbitrary) real number. --Trovatore 05:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- What you saw there is NOT an underline indicating division, it is a brace indicating that there are r copies of ω being added together to get ω·r . JRSpriggs 09:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Intro too technical
The article needs a nontechnical section at the top of the introduction. Currently, it immediately dives into the mathematics. Pcu123456789 04:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it wouldn't hurt to add some intuitive motivation. However I don't agree with the {{confusing}} tag. It's a mathematics article, after all, so the complaint about "diving into mathematics" is a bit odd. The tag should be reserved for articles whose logical structure is unclear, not those that need to be made more accessible. Discuss the latter issue on the talk page, not the article page. --Trovatore 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
