Talk:Therefore sign

message: Perhaps a picture of the sign? For those who don't have a font that includes it Carewolf 16:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture wanted

message: In many mathmatics textbooks, this means "Q.E.D." in proofs. Perhaps we should add that? Would a single textbook be enough for citation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Budster650 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the therefore symbol to mean Q.E.D. is nonstandard.  I've never seen it.  It's a personal quirk, like using a heart symbol (some people do).  Zaslav (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q.E.D. 

message: The article doesn't actually explain why the "therefore" sign is 3 dots in a triangle shape.  Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.207.246 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you think of a better shape to arrange 3 dots in? —Wiki Wikardo 04:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 3 dots in triangle form? 

message: I'm in my sixties. I studied Mathematics at university in the 1960s and made a career change to become a high school teacher of mathematics five years ago. Having been brainwashed by my high school teachers to use the therefore sign on every line of a logical mathematical solution, I was distressed to see the sign missing from modern textbooks, and to encounter students at senior levels who had never heard of it. My theory to explain this is that while my textbooks way back then were typeset by professionals with access to extensive sets of characters, modern textbook writers use only those characters visible on computer keyboards. (More knowledgeable and fussy writers could use ASCII key combinations, but most won't even know how.) There is no therefore sign on my keyboard. I predict it becoming extinct within 20 years. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly. Many abbreviations and shorthand symbols were used to conserve space and provide expediency, since paper was expensive and notes were often hand-written. Nowadays, with modern technology, abbreviations and the like are largely historical artifacts. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has word processing made the therefore sign a threatened species? 

message: Does this count as a proper reference? 94.7.70.153 (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not! WTF? There's not even a statement asserting that the described use of the symbol is proper on the talk page, but a question if it is! LOL! I've removed the reference; thank you for pointing it out. Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article references it's own talk page 

message: There are no mention of alt-codes used in the Windows operating systems.  Alt+8756 produces "4" in most applications (excepting Word).  This character does not appear in Arial or Times New Roman, yet most apps will display the pasted character properly without any font substitution (such as Firefox).  The character can be copied and pasted, but not created in Windows.  Further topic, how does Windows perform this slight-of-hand?  Many people online are looking for an answer to this; perhaps Wiki editors can find the answer.  I've hit the limit of my abilities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.36.16 (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ten years too late, but just in case anyone still cares... The traditional Windows alt codes are undefined for numbers above decimal 255, hex FF, so there is no alt code for this character except the Unicode input method. Modern versions of Windows all use Unicode as standard so it is not a significant issue that needs to be mentioned in this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does Windows handle this character? 

message: Seriously, if we’re including Japanese maps and freemasons, should we not include the mi vida loca tattoo? —Wiki Wikardo 04:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mi vida loca 

message: The second example under Examples of use,
:x + 1 = 6
:x = 6 - 1
:∴ x = 5,
is not a syllogism, as the conclusion is not based on two propositions, but only on one, since the second line is a consequence of the first proposition and hence not a new proposition. Maybe we should change this example to something like
:x + y = 6
:y = 1
:∴ x = 5,
which would make it a syllogism? —Kri (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second example of use is not a syllogism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Therefore sign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081014090303/http://www.scenta.co.uk:80/tcaep/maths/symbol/Mathematical%20Symbols/index.htm to http://www.scenta.co.uk/tcaep/maths/symbol/Mathematical%20Symbols/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The final sentence of the History section tells me "In this century, the three-dot notation for therefore became very rare in continental Europe, but it remains popular in the British Isles." Which century?
Given that the previous sentence finished with "...in the nineteenth century", is that the century being referred to? Or is it the 21st? Or something else?
The source linked to didn't help me understand at all. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  In this century? 

message: The Freemasonry section is poorly written.  The claimed connection to "therefore" does not make sense.  Zaslav (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It was mostly pointless waffle. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemasonry?