Talk:Floor and ceiling functions

message: See better ceil(x) at https://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/content/1939/image84.png
as better "filled color" (red in this case). The line is also filled, like a bolded line. The addiction of the "empty point" representation of the line function needs to be bold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krauss (talk • contribs) 01:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: that would be great but I get access denied — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitzak (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please better representation 

message: I wanted to type the floor function symbols but, although I knew they existed, they were rather hard to find with Google.  I even clicked on Wikipedia's Floor and ceiling functions page!  Ha. Fat chance that the "new" Wiki would actually have what I'm looking for!  :-)
This is a test.  I've added something useful to the page and have a bet with myself that some Wiki editor will find reason to remove my change without finding an alternate way to provide the same useful information.  What do I win? Jamesdowallen (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd spent half as much time making your edit decent (correctly placed, correctly formatted, on topic) instead of writing this dickish message, I wouldn't have had to fix it for you.  You're welcome. --JBL (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Those are not "ISO codes". They are the decimal values of the Unicode code points, used by HTML character entities. You can use the hex values into a HTML character entity by typing &#x<hex>; most of Unicode is defined using the hex number not the decimal one so this is preferred. I put examples in to replace the other text which did not format correctly anyway. May want to add (using & to get it to print correctly) the source, but please use the hex value.Spitzak (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Hope this is addressed with my last edit. Spitzak (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISO codes 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Greatest integer and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 19#Greatest integer until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  D.Lazard (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Greatest integer" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The article defines  such that , that is, as truncation towards zero. Some texts define the integral part of a number as "the part to the left of the decimal point". It is not clear, though, that the authors meant this to be applicable to negative real numbers. More recent sources define "integral part" as equivalent (or even explicitly as equal) to the floor function. The statement in the latter source that  clearly contradicts the present definition in our article.  --Lambiam 06:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much suspect the idea that  means round-towards-zero and not floor is a made-up "fact" by wikipedia.Spitzak (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur. The standard convention in mathematics is that [x] and \lfloor x\rfloor denote the same thing (unless [x] means something completely different, such as the Iverson bracket).—Emil J. 11:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "integral part" 

message: I'm concerned that at least some people think -1 is "smaller" than -2, and the use of the word "smallest" in the opening paragraphs is incorrect. I tried changing it to "lowest" but that got reverted. Any opinions on this? Spitzak (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Both "smaller" and "lower" involve an implicit agreement between reader and author about how bigness (whether in the language of size or height) works for negative numbers.  We could make explicit that the order relation in question is the usual total order on the real numbers, but I don't believe this will help the (in my estimation, very small) percentage of people who believe both that -1 is smaller than -2 and that -2 is lower than -1.  But, I would also be happy to hear the views of other editors.  --JBL (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smallest