Talk:Plus–minus sign

message: Of course people say "give or take" meaning something similar to this, but do people really read
this symbol as that?  I've never encountered it, and it says "citation required".  Perhaps it 
should go.
(And writing this, I realise that the page doesn't mention the typewriter-convention of "+/-".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.19.134 (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard it pronounced as give or take, but never in a scientific/statistical context as the article suggests. I have updated the article to make it clear that give or take is a colloquial way to pronounce the symbol. - Zephyris Talk 16:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Then, may I recommend the interrobang‽--Joel 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AGK loves the interrobang :) AGK (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone really read +/- as "give or take" ? 

message: In biology, or at least cell biology, it's common to use plus-minus to give the standard error of the mean for a variable. In a paper, you typically declare what you're doing in the methods section, so there's no ambiguity; it is different to practice in other fields, though.
And yes, this does mean we're effectively using 67% confidence limits. Sigh.
-- Tom Anderson 2008-01-29 2013 +0000  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.81.63 (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use for standard error of the mean 

message: Is it worth mentioning the use of this symbol in chess notation to mean "[clear] advantage for White", as in Punctuation_%28chess%29#Position_evaluation_symbols? -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chess 

message: It's probably worth noting that, while the expression x±y∓z isn't ambiguous, the expression x±y±z is, since it doesn't determine whether the signs can be different or whether they have to be the same.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.96.22 (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't quite correct. In many cases x±y±z is totally fine and non ambiguous. It is quite common in science literature to for example write 51.21 ± 0.13 (systematic) ± 0.121 (random), which is to separate two errors, like bias, accuracy and resolution, or sample variance separately. It is usually fine and non-ambiguous. Errors can be combined by simply summing them up (taking maximums), or combining using assumption about underlying distribution of errors, i.e. if they are normal distributions, square root of sum of squares, is usual method of for example. In some text articles, you will see even more terms, and I did see astronomical articles with up to 10 ± terms. 2A02:168:F609:0:7855:CA84:B8D8:C659 (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the minus/plus section 

message: There is a  ⋇ 'DIVISION TIMES' (U+22C7) , \divideontimes in Latex AMS, which is somehow analogous for multiply/divide. It is useful when showing error factors (geometric standard deviation factor), in geometric means and their errors for example. And in other situations. I think it should be mentioned somehow here, or referenced. 2A02:168:F609:0:7855:CA84:B8D8:C659 (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiply-divide sign? 

message: Plus-or-minus can be used as INCLUSIVE disjunction or EXCLUSIVE disjunction. The article currently highlights INCLUSIVE disjunction, and only hints at EXCLUSIVE disjunction, in its discussion of the Taylor series for the sine function, but then points out that a more rigorous presentation would eliminate the need for the plus-or-minus symbol.
 
Here are 2 examples of exclusive disjunction that should be incorporated into the article.
 
1. If x is any real number, then the square root of x^2 is plus-or-minus x, with 'minus' being chosen if, and only if, x < 0.
 
2. In Trigonometry, the half-angle formulas are preceded by a plus-or-minus sign. This does not mean that both the positive and negative expressions are valid. Rather, it depends on the quadrant in which the half-angle terminates.
 
https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Precalculus/Precalculus_1e_(OpenStax)/07%3A_Trigonometric_Identities_and_Equations/7.03%3A_Double-Angle_Half-Angle_and_Reduction_Formulas Kontribuanto (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  exclusive disjunction for plus-or-minus