Talk:Addition

Addition has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 27, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
April 24, 2015	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Good article

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

GA1

Talk:Addition/GA1

Bilorv (talk · contribs) 21:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion replaced with a direct link. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2-digit carry?

While adding 2 numbers at the highest digit will never be able to reach the 3-digit threshold (9+9=18), but what if you are adding far more than 2 numbers? For example 999*12 but you do this with only addition?:

Notice that if you try to add up the 9s on the ones place column, you end up with 108. You can simply write the 8 as the ones place in the column, but what about the 10? You're not carrying 1 digit, but 2 digits instead. Do I simply treat the 2 digit as a single number, like 10+(9*12) = 18 with the rightmost digit (8) written in the result's tens place and repeat adding numbers, and carrying multiple digits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeleoj123 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. A Wikipedia talk page is not an internet forum designed to discuss the topic – it is only for discussion about content in the article and how to improve the article.

As to your question, people have many different ways to calculate addition and all are mathematically valid. In the case of adding 11 of more k-digit numbers (11 is the minimum needed to get a k+2 digit result), you have a couple of options: you can carry the whole overflow into the next column, or carry each digit of the overflow into the respective columns. So in your example, you can write 18 in the tens place and continue adding, or you can write an 8 in the tens place and a 1 in the hundreds place. These methods are ultimately the same – if you put the 10 in the tens place, at the next step you will simply have an overflow of 1 more than you do with the other method, which leads to an extra 1 in the hundreds place. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 08:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2+3 = 5 apples

I read from left to right and then go down to the next line -- unless there is some spacing or other indication to do otherwise. So, when I read the picture of three plus two apples, I saw

A

AA

AA,

which is 1+2+2. I think the image should be replaced with one like

A

A.. A

A ..A

if not
AAA

AA . (where .. should be a blank space or two)

Kdammers (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Unfortunately it's not too easy to edit images. Can anyone make a new image like this (3 apples on the first row; 2 on the second)? — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two years on, and the same image is still there. Kdammers (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify image

Could somebody please clarify what the image purports to mean? The one that reads "Defining (−2) + 1 using only addition of positive numbers: (2 − 4) + (3 − 2) = 5 − 6." --Backinstadiums (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems impossible to clarify, as the scale (values corresponding to horizontal lines) as well as the meanings of colors and arrows are not defined. Even with the lacking definitions, I suspect that the figure would remain confusing. So, I have removed the figure. D.Lazard (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hypernym

What is the common hypernym of addition and subtraction, but not the wider known hypernym arithmetic operation

It is group-permissible transformation / group-allowable transformation (here write for which category, -ies of numbers) which excludes multiplication and division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:107C:784D:540A:FB23:78D0 (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although not used very frequently, the proper term would be additive operation. The corresponding term for multiplication and division would be multiplicative operation. Your use of "group" above is too general as it can refer to anything having a single operation, which need not be addition or subtraction.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

translation

One of the images (2+4=6) uses the word 'translation' to explain it; how-ever, "translation" is not used any-where else in the article. What does it mean? Kdammers (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A translation is a rigid motion; i.e., moving without rotating, although in one dimension, this is a meaningless distinction (see Translation (geometry) for more, possibly technical as well). This introduction of terminology probably isn't great. If anyone wants to tweak it, please go ahead; I don't have any great ideas at the moment. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

labeling

One of the basic principles of good illustration is to label things where appropriate. But this article has two illustrations with the same unlabeled three colors. "Adding π2/6 and e using Dedekind cuts of rationals" --What is red, what is blue, and what is green? I don't know how this article got nominated to be a good article, with problems like this. 37.99.82.253 (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three years on, and the illustrations are still mystifying. Kdammers (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers: I have looked at the Dedekind cuts version of the diagram, and thought about it fot some time, and I absolutely cannot understand it at all, so, adding to that the two comments above from you and someone else, I have removed it. The Cauchy sequence version I can understand, so I've given it the benefit of the doubt and left it in place. However, I doubt that it would actually help anyone to understand the concept if they didn't already understand it, and I wouldn't quarrel with anyone who decided to remove that one too. JBW (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Innate ability

Should the strange case of the Pirahãs' alleged lack of adding be brought up? Kdammers (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the sources? - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language, references at footnote 6. Kdammers (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

adding adding animals

Additional adding animals apparently include ocean-dwellers (https://www.uni-bonn.de/en/news/060-2022), but, behold, bees belong by other adders as well (according to https://theconversation.com/can-bees-do-maths-yes-new-research-shows-they-can-add-and-subtract-108074). Should these be added to animals adding section? Kdammers (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This experiment showed that if you do many many training runs with bees where you show 2–3 colored shapes next to an entrance to a Y-shaped room with two further examples of several shapes, one side of which leads to sugar water, where the "correct" choice had 1 shape more than the original collection if the shapes were blue or 1 shape less than the original collection if the shapes were ~~blue~~ yellow, then the bees can eventually learn to get the answer "correct" about 2/3 of the time.

Concluding from this that bees can "perform basic maths" seems.... very liberal with definitions. To me personally this seems much closer to "rat memorizing a maze" than to a person or animal learning to add and subtract. I would skip mentioning this study here, but it might belong in some kind of article about bees' cognition and memory. –jacobolus (t) 19:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobolus: One of the blues in your post should be a yellow. Also, unless I have misunderstood, your "2-3" shapes should be "1-5".

An interesting experiment. However, I agree that interpreting this experiment as showing that bees "can add and subtract" is being, as Jacobolus pits it, "very liberal" in use of terms. I think the experiment could be taken as indicating that the bees have a rudimentary and very imperfect ability to distinguish between "greater" and "less", which I suppose could be described as performing very basic maths, but I think that's the absolute limit. JBW (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"defining the real number 0 to be the set of negative rationals"

This does not sound right. Should it rather be something like: "The real number 0 is defined as the Dedekind cut that separates the rational numbers into two parts: the negative rationals and the non-negative rationals" Merlin.anthwares (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Merlin.anthwares: Separating the rational numbers into two parts is an intuitive description of the idea behind what a Dedekind cut does, but the formal definition of a Dedekind cut is, as stated in the article, "a non-empty set of rationals that is closed downward and has no greatest element". Therefore the definition of the real number 0 as the set of negative rationals is correct, albeit unintuitive. JBW (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation! Merlin.anthwares (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Breaks in formulas

@D.Lazard, can you explain what you mean by "I the line is broken, the resulting indentation would be incorrect"? On my phone it appears just fine. On the mobile app, if a formula is too long, it forces the whole article to scroll side-to-side rather than just the formula, making a very annoying reading experience. And on the mobile web interface, there is no way to scroll at all, so the formula just gets cut off with no way to see the rest. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, displayed formulas must be indented, and, if a formula is broken over two lines, the second line must be more indented. With your edit, the first line remains indented, but there is no indentation at all for the second line. So, your edit make things worse on many devices.

I tryed to limit the length of the lines by using the "align" latex environment, but one of the matrices alone has a width that exceeds the line length on mobiles in portrait mode (landscape mode is possibly a partial answer to your problem).

In view of the multiplicity of reading devices, the only reasonable solution seems a request to WP:Phabricator.

You may also ask to WT:WPM whether somebody has a better solution. D.Lazard (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"With your edit, the first line remains indented, but there is no indentation at all for the second line". I don't know what you mean here... On my phone, after the break they appear on the same indent. I tried this on my computer too by limiting the width of my window and they also appear to be on the same indent. On larger screens there is no break displayed at all, so this only affects users who already have issues due to the length. If your issue is "if a formula is broken over two lines, the second line must be more indented", this seems extremely minor compared to the formula being cut off entirely. Slightly inconvenient indentation is certainly better than that.

"but one of the matrices alone has a width that exceeds the line length". They all seem to fit on my screen when breaks are put between each (though the largest one just barely). In any case, that's no reason to make the problem worse by lining up the equals signs, forcing them off the screen further. The breaking I used for the matricies looks fine on large screens and is more visible on smaller ones. What's the objection? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@D.Lazard, please self-revert to allow users with smaller screens to read the article. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood your above comment: it referred to section § Scientific notation and I answered about section § Matrices. For § Scientific notation, my edit summary said "Not a good way for allowing line breaks". This meant that there were better ways, and that I was not willing to spent time to apply them. Thanks to Jacobolus to have correctly fixed the format of this formula. D.Lazard (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]