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]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Addition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228115904/http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/mthmain.asp to http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/mthmain.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 2 August 2017 (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, 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]