Talk:Number
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Number article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. 
Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL 
Archives: 1, 2Autoarchiving period: 1 year 
Number has been listed as a level2 vital article in Mathematics. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as CClass by WikiProject Vital Articles. 
Number was a Mathematics good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.  
 
Current status: Former good article nominee 
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:  

Disputed: history section[edit]
I have restored the "Disputed section" tag that was placed in November 2014 and removed, prematurely, in January 2018. The original Talk page discussion is here. While a few citations have been added and a few problems corrected since the tag was placed, the section for the most part looks as it did in 2006. I'm afraid I don't know how to begin fixing the problems. It might be best to start from scratch. This is a level 2 vital article, so it seems especially problematic that the history section has remained in this state for so long.
To give but a few examples of the problems: In the subject "First use of numbers" the Mesopotamian sexagesimal place value system is dated to 3400 BC, whereas the linked article dates it to 2100 BC, which seems much closer to dates I have seen in the scholarly literature. The second half of the passage could be read as saying that the Egyptian system was also a placevalue system, which it was not.
In the first paragraph on the history of irrational numbers just about every statement is either false or misleading. The opening sentence says the oldest known use of irrational numbers was in the Sulba Sutras (800 BC – 500 BC). The Shulba Sutras do contain approximations of the square root of 2, but do not mention the concept of irrationality. Furthermore, the square root of 2 had been approximated just about as accurately 1000 years earlier in Mesopotamia. The rest of the paragraph consists of an uncritical presentation of the most sensationalistic version of the Hipassus myth. The ancient sources for the myth were written more than half a millennium after the time of Pythagoras and are considered unreliable. Not all mention Hippasus; not all mention death by drowning; they don't agree that the infraction was related to the discovery of irrationality; the story of Pythagoras issuing a death sentence is, as far as I can tell, a modern invention. Furthermore, numbers for the ancient Greeks were 2, 3, 4, ... They had theories of ratios, both of numbers and of magnitudes, and had proved that some magnitudes were incommensurable, but they did not manipulate ratios arithmetically as numbers.
One could go on and on. Will Orrick (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
"The Number" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Number and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#The Number until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Semiprotected edit request on 14 February 2023: in fig: NumberSetinC.svg, Zero is shown under Natural number please edit it under whole numbers[edit]
https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Number#/media/File:NumberSetinC.svg
in above link, Zero is shown under Natural number please edit it under whole numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomanhoo19 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 There is nothing wrong in this figure, and neither "natural number" nor "whole number" appear in the figure and in its caption. For the coverage of "whole number" in Wikipedia, please read Whole number, and the comments on this phrase in Natural number and here. Nothing more is needed for a phrase that is not in common use because of its ambiguity. D.Lazard (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 Wikipedia level2 vital articles in Mathematics
 Wikipedia CClass vital articles in Mathematics
 Wikipedia CClass level2 vital articles
 Former good article nominees
 Old requests for peer review
 CClass mathematics articles
 Toppriority mathematics articles
 Vital mathematics articles
 Featured articles on Mathematics Portal
 CClass Version 1.0 articles
 Topimportance Version 1.0 articles
 Mathematics Version 1.0 articles
 Wikipedia CD Selection
 CClass Version 1.0 vital articles
 Wikipedia Version 1.0 vital articles
 CClass core topic articles
 Wikipedia Version 1.0 core topic articles
 Wikipedia Version 1.0 articles
 WikiProject Numbers articles