Talk:Real number: Difference between revisions
imported>Philipp Rumpf ("Real number" or "real numbers"?) |
imported>Nancy Sculerati MD |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
[[User:Philipp Rumpf|Philipp Rumpf]] 13:56, 3 February 2007 (CST) | [[User:Philipp Rumpf|Philipp Rumpf]] 13:56, 3 February 2007 (CST) | ||
I vote for 'real number'. The language of the article is not straightforward. I wish my memory was good enough to quote my second grade classmate Michael Cohen (Mike, are you out there?) ((whose father was a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study)) when he explained the term to our disapproving second grade teacher. Can you simplify the language? Nancy[[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 16:18, 3 February 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 17:18, 3 February 2007
"Real number" or "real numbers"?
I'd prefer, overall, this article to be at real numbers, rather than at the singular name. After all, unlike ordinal numbers, a single real number does not really have any property that can be expressed without referring to other real numbers, unless the (non-standard) choice of which construction to use is made.
(Note I accidentally started the other article before I noticed the singular article had already been copied over. I'm now not sure which one to turn into a redirect.)
Thoughts?
Philipp Rumpf 13:56, 3 February 2007 (CST)
I vote for 'real number'. The language of the article is not straightforward. I wish my memory was good enough to quote my second grade classmate Michael Cohen (Mike, are you out there?) ((whose father was a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study)) when he explained the term to our disapproving second grade teacher. Can you simplify the language? NancyNancy Sculerati MD 16:18, 3 February 2007 (CST)