Talk:Numerical digit

message: The "in computer science" section could use a few links to non-standard representations (like, BCD or 7-segments). -- Jokes Free4Me 17:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representations 

message: Why does the picture on the right say Arabic numerals, when Arabic numerals came from the Hindu system? I mean when you click that link it says how it came from the Hindu system them. So why does this link say Algebraic? I mean why Algebraic? Cus that leads the person to maybe think that this came from Arabic. But it actually came from Hindus then, and then to Arabic right then? Well I think it say's something like that when you click the link itself which I think is under the picture then . 71.105.87.54 (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indians did not use these numerals (shapes for the digits). The system which we use digits to do arithmetic is the Hindu-Arabic numeral system, but the digits themselves are from Western Arabic sources and are called Arabic numerals. I don't know why your talking about Algebraic, that has nothing to do with this. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does it say Arabic numberals?  

message: There is a section about computer bases and balanced tertiary, so why not the main alternative base dozenal? Or the Tonal system? Both of these feature different extensions to the standard Western Arabic digits.
On a different point, also nothing is said about the larger bases like 60. In these, it is worth noting that a digit is made up of two characters, i.e. in 36:3060 = 2190, the digits are "37" and "30". 2.103.89.101 (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative bases 

message: I have no deeper knowlidge of the history of the ten digits. In (swedish) school we were teached that the digits were arabic. But far later a friend from Iran told me that the origin of the digits was persian, and somtimes called "arabic digits" in the west only due to the fact that europeans got them from the arabs. But even later I heard a professor (or alike) in television arguing that the ten digits originally came from India and sanskrit. Boeing720 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: This figure of "A" for 5000 does not come when searching generally. The wikipedia on roman numerals puts "V" with a bar aove it as a way of denoting 5000. 
I also have a problem with Roman numerals being listed in the table of base ten systems which have discrete figures for different numbers. The difference is that if you want to write the date 1920 in arabic figures or tamil etc... you just string those figures together (for the sake of argument let's ignore different calendars). With Roman numerals 1620 is not IVIII[zero], it is MCMXX. I am proposing that it is simply included below the table but not in it (as it already is) but with the "I" and "V" added and the "A" removed. 
Other numeral systems similar Roman numerals (the Chinese and Ge'ez) should be afforded the same treatment. One further note is that the "additional numerals" should be in a table. 90.195.140.219 (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put the additional numerals in a table. I have left the chinese, Ge'ez and Roman in the popular systems table because it is not fitting to only have them in the "additional numerals" section. There is a disparity with having the full roman system in the additional table, while only larger abbreviation of the chinese system are there. I cannot currently think of a way around this, besides listing all numerals in one table. Of course, most numeral systems don't have a symbol for 10^12 but are happy to keep adding zeros or to use SI, so it would mean many blank boxes. Also, there needs to be some table editing to make the columns of uniform width, but i don't know how to do that. 90.195.140.219 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman numerals under "Numerals in most popular systems" 

message: I'm working on improving the referencing of this article but it's a struggle.
A big chunk of material was added in this edit. that roughly doubled the size of the article and brought in a lot of unsourced material. The edit summary says it came from Numeral (linguistics), so I checked that article to see if some of the material was still there and referenced, but as the edit says it was a marriage not a copy, so it is no longer there. I tried (albeit not very hard) to Dan who added the information in case they might shed some light on sources. I will add a ping to the editor who did the merge:  in case they can shed any light on sources.
Short of that, I plan to continue looking for some sources but if I do not find a source, I'm planning on making a list of sentences that are unsourced and remove them if the source cannot be found.
I hope others will join me in looking for sourcing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved that stuff over here wholesale when I moved the article from 'number names' to 'numeral'. Here is the set of changes I made at that time. I doubt you'll find any sources in there, but maybe I overlooked something. — kwami (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing concerns 

message: I know this is being picky but the second paragraph of this article currently says:
There are binary systems other than the one with a zero and one, but that one is ubiquitous enough that referring to it as the binary system makes sense. However "e.g." would make sense if we were talking about "a binary system" and wanted to give a particular example, but if we are talking about "the binary system" then we should say (i.e.: 0 and 1)
I plan to make the change but I'm gonna leave this for little while in case someone has a different opinion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned edit 

message: The wrong part: ‘The Roman empire used tallies written on wax, papyrus and stone, and roughly followed the Greek custom of assigning letters to various numbers.’
This says a) that they got their numerals directly from the Greeks, even though they got them from the Etruscans, and b) in combination with the previous paragraph that the Roman system was like the late Greek pseudo-decimal system, even though it resembled the Attic system more.
The source cited is also not a particularly good source for this kind of thing. If this is the principal source consulted for that part of the text, that makes me worry for quality of the article as a whole.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in bit about Roman numerals 

message: An IP editor has wanted to change Hindu-Arabic and European both to Arabic on the page.  The first appears to be against style, while the second is actually inaccurate (Arabic countries use a different number system).  I've reverted.  Starting a discussion, and pinging , who does a fair bit of math page editing and who has recently edited this page. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits