Talk:Whole number

Integers and Whole Numbers

My son laugh a problem in his math homework that we are trying to figure out. It asks what the error is in the following statement: Jeff says that every whole number is an integer and that every integer is a whole number. Explain the error.Smcnell 03:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Because -1 is an integer but not a whole number." That's what I would write. --Ed Smilde

1 is a whole number but the integers include the negatives i think and whole numbers do not — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.156.50 (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Whole Numbers does not equal Natural numbers

This is high school stuff... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.190.231 (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not everything they teach you in high school is necessarily the last word on the subject. Might as well get used to that early :-). --Trovatore 06:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the author. H. A. Thurston in his book The Number System (1956) uses the term 'whole numbers' to mean natural numbers. --85.65.72.54 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.190.231 (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Chapter II of Thurston is titled "Whole Numbers": H.A. Thurston, The Number System, Blackie & Son Limited, 1956.

The Number System is available in a Dover edition.

--50.53.35.229 (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked at Thurston and on page 15 he says "the integers (the positive and negative whole numbers)". So really he "knows" that the whole numbers is the set of integers, he is just using the term "whole number" to mean positive non-zero integers. And on page 8 he defines the whole numbers starting from 1, but on page 12 he says he will include 0 among the whole numbers. So Thurston uses all the different possible definitions in one book with no regard for consistency. I don't think he's a good reference for anything. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

A Whole Number Is...

A whole number is any non-negative integer, which includes 0. These numbers are whole numbers: 0, 1, 2, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jszivos (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and propose a revert from the current disambiguation page to the article at this version, as its consensus of references show that whole numbers mathematically have stood on their own as set W (the non-negative integers), distinct from the natural numbers N (the positive integers), and the integers Z (all integers). Who is with me? Prepare for dissent from Trovatore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.84.227.12 (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat old response to both of you, but I have an idea to rectify the situation. From the reliable sources point of view, whole number might have reason to stand as an article. The version User:161.84.227.12 pointed out has reliable references and the bulk of which state "whole number" includes 0, 1, 2, 3 .... For the purposes of Wikipedia alone, this reason is enough to keep "whole number" as an article. The other alternative is to redirect to natural number and merge the content there, or to explain "whole number" and the related concepts there.174.3.125.23 (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

An actual article about "whole numbers" is the absolute worst possible solution. There is nothing whatsoever to say about whole numbers that isn't just talking about natural numbers (or integers, for those who use the term that way).

I am personally OK with a redirect to natural number. I think everything else can be explained at that article. However there's at least one contributor who doesn't think that gives enough prominence to the "integer" meaning. --Trovatore (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

natural number explains it sufficiently. We note that "whole number" is a synonym, and that should be sufficient. Any further discussion on "whole number" can be made on natural number including its use in nonscholarly literature.174.3.125.23 (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me. --Trovatore (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am going to post a note on talk:natural number for the implementation.174.3.125.23 (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe an undefined but understood term!

Most preschooler in certain English speaking societies know what a “whole dollar” is, not a “natural dollar” or an “integer dollar”. In those societies the words “whole number” is to arithmetic as the terms “point”, “line”, or “plane” is to geometry. Mathematics has an intuitive base, please respect the term “whole number”. It is necessary in the learning process. Jim Kelly

I'm really not sure what your point is. I gather that you would like to write an article about the term "whole number"? But Wikipedia is not a dictionary and does not exist to document terms. There are a few accepted exceptions for words considered to be particularly interesting phenomena as words (for example thou) but surely whole number does not fall in that category. --Trovatore (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:DABCONCEPT

This term is not ambiguous, per WP:DABCONCEPT. To the contrary, there is apparently merely a dispute as to the actual meaning, but agreement that the term refers specifically to some set of integers. There is no set of disaparate classes of things (movies, albums, ships, people, planets) bearing the name. Rather, there is one type of thing bearing the name, with different ideas about the scope of that one type of thing. Perhaps it could be listed as an SIA, but the better practice would likely be to explain the dispute (whether live or merely historical) in the article itself, rather than leaving it to be found only by those who edit the page. bd2412 T 14:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems ambiguous to me. Why should we have an article about it? Is there some source that says something useful about it as opposed to natural number or integer or do you think those two articles should be merged? Dmcq (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It's good to check the article history before proposing this sort of change. The page used to be an article (although not a very good one): see this version. Then it was changed to a disambiguation page--diff, following discussion at Talk:Natural_number/Archive_1#Merge_whole_number_here. There's further discussion above, under the heading Reverts, which seems to end in consensus for keeping it as a disambiguation page. Jowa fan (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm utterly opposed to making it an article; that's complete nonsense. However bd2412 does have somewhat of a point that it's not a classical disambig either. Has anyone considered possibly making it a Wiktionary redirect? That would (at least to some extent) address the needs of anyone who enters "whole number" into the search box. As for internal links to whole number, of course there should not be any; they should be changed to point to integer or natural number as the case may be. --Trovatore (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I disagree that WP:DABCONCEPT is relevant. That guide talks about different instantiations of some "broad concept", such as a triangle center, where there are interestingly different ways of finding a point in a triangle that is in some sense central. But there is no "broad concept" here at all; some speakers are using whole number to mean one precise thing, and some to mean some other precise thing. It's purely a piece of nomenclature; no article can be written about it that is not essentially a dictionary entry. --Trovatore (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. My main concern is that I don't see any way to write an "article" on the topic without engaging in lots of original research and speculation. Each author has a particular convention, but they don't justify or explain it in a way that we could cite here, they just use it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Cut the Gordian knot?

So right now we have three entries in the disambiguation table, each of which has a single bluelink, namely integers.

I have to say that seems a little silly. An awful lot more effort has been spent on this page than it's really worth.

So how about this simple alternative?

• Redirect this page to natural number
• Put a hatnote at the top of that article, pointing to the excellent section natural number#History of natural numbers and the status of zero, where all this is explained.

The reason not to redirect whole number straight to the section is that most occurrences of whole number in WP articles are most likely going to be talking about natural numbers, including 0. The correct target for that concept is simply natural number, not a discussion of terminological issues. (Ideally, no one would ever link to whole number at all, and that's probably the biggest downside of my proposal — as long as whole number is a disambig page, bots will notify you if you link to it, whereas if it were a redirect, they wouldn't.)

Thoughts? --Trovatore (talk) 04:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with simply redirecting to "natural number" is that "natural number" is never used to refer to negative integers, but there are respected mathematical authorities for whom "whole number" includes negative integers. See the hidden references on the edit page. I was the one who added the references back in 2006. I even had a discussion on the talk page in 2006 with someone who had your point of view until he saw the references. I originally added the references to the visible content of the page but was told that references shouldn't be on a disambiguation page, so I put them in comments. Because these references aren't visible until you go to edit the page, this topic keeps coming up. BrianH123 (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Right, I know that usage exists, but I think it's a minority usage, and anyway I believe it's discussed at the section where I proposed to point the hatnote. --Trovatore (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I think just the act of making this page a redirect to natural number tells the visitor (or strongly implies) that the two terms have the same meaning. The visitor would then have to read through six paragraphs of "History of Natural Numbers and the Status of Zero" to learn, in passing, that the term he was originally interested in, for many mathematicians, includes negative integers, which are definitely not part of the picture for natural numbers. As for "whole number" = "integer" being "minority usage", I don't know that anyone has ever conducted a survey, but my personal experience is probably in line with yours. I was always taught that "whole number" was a non-negative integer. But if we're interested in the common man's definition, at least one dictionary (Webster's Third New International) has only one definition, integer, and arguably, that should be the sole definition because "whole" in this context means no fractional part, and -123 has no fractional part just as surely as 123. Perhaps the reason we were taught that "whole number" is 0, 1, 2, 3, etc., is because the notion of fractions is introduced to children before the notion of negative numbers (if I recall correctly and if my education is representative, two big assumptions). If I had my way, this page would be turned from a disambiguation page into a short article with content similar to the Wolfram MathWorld article (hopefully not plagiarized, and leaving out the Z set terminology) and the references we have made visible. We would discourage growth of this page ("whole number" being more of a grade school term) and encourage the visitor to see the article on integers and natural numbers. As long as this is a disambiguation page and the references are hidden, we're going to have to live with these recurring discussions. I agree with you that too much time has been spent on this page, and I think the reason is because the evidence that there are three definitions in use by respected authorities is hidden unless you edit the page. BrianH123 (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, my next preference would be a Wiktionary redirect, I guess. There is nothing mathematical to say about the locution whole number, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so I think an article, even a short one, is out of place here. --Trovatore (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to natural number?

The calls for a redirect to natural number are many and varied. "whole number" and "natural number" are synonyms. It is stated on natural number that some "natural number" = integer in some definitions, resulting in "whole number" = integer in some instances. The current page is so simple it lists these definitions. Objections?174.3.125.23 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The page already links to natural number, so I do not understand what you are proposing. And natural number does not mean the same as integer under any definition I am aware of – an "integer" may be negative, a "natural number" may not. Maproom (talk) 06:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I am proposing to redirect this article to natural number. At the end of 6th paragraph of natural number#History and the status of zero, it states "while others use it in a way that includes both 0 and the negative integers, as an equivalent of the term integer" with a reference. If you edit whole number, you will notice a number of references which use whole number as synonymous to integer. Per wikipedia policies, I dont think we should have 2 articles discussing the same topic. WP:CONTENTFORK may be relevant here.174.3.125.23 (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I see. I hadn't realised that this was an article; I had mistaken it for a disambiguation page. In my view it ought to be a disambiguation page, referring the reader to natural number for positive-only and for non-negative uses of "whole number", and to integer for uses of "whole number" which may be negative. At present, it lists all three types of "whole number", but confusingly, all three are linked to integer. Maproom (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

References, though, are inconsistent in their usage. For the purposes of WP:RS, we have to document the use in reliable sources. We cannot use our own definitions. Lots of discussion on this topic are found in the above threads. One editor quoted that we cannot use our own observations due to WP:V.174.3.125.23 (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Maproom: You were right the first time; it's a disambiguation page. It's tagged as a disambig page, and it uses the disambig-page format.

It's just sort of a not-very-good disambiguation page, insofar as all three links point to the same place, and it's mostly the wrong place.

I don't quite agree with the statement that "we have to document the use in reliable sources", mainly because it assumes that we have to document the usage at all. Encyclopedias are for explaining their subject matter, not for documenting usage. However, it doesn't make much difference in practice, because I do think this usage should be documented, just that it doesn't justify having an actual article to document it — it can be worked in to articles that are not primarily about documenting usage.

I support the redirect to natural number, with the appropriate explanations at that page. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Coming from the natural number article, here.

This is a disambiguation page for an ambiguous term. That is how it should be according to WP policy. Redirecting this would be a bad idea, as "whole number" doesn't always mean "natural number". Also, this page does not actually link to natural number though it really should. I'm not sure who thought it was a good idea to have three links to integer, but frankly: It's kinda dumb. I apologize for my abruptness if anyone involved here is responsible for that, but I stand by my statement. Three links to integer, with no links to natural number or Sign_(mathematics)#Terminology_for_signs is not at all how this page should be. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, "whole number" doesn't always mean "natural number", just as much as "natural number" doesn't always mean "integer", though depending on the reference, it does. I don't see how this couldn't this page be redirected to "natural number", as they are used ambiguous and synonymous, when the only way out of this problem is to explain the usage on "natural number". On the contrary, this is a clear violation of WP:CONTENTFORK for these reasons. As to redirecting to Sign (mathematics), I would oppose it because "whole number" has much less to do with negative and positive values than natural number.174.3.125.23 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The proposal to redirect to natural number is a standard mechanism — see WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. There is no violation of "WP policy". --Trovatore (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you are quite right. Theres less of policy violation rather than policy execution.174.3.125.23 (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Trovatore: see WP:D, which says Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia. So you're saying that "Whole number" is entirely synonymous with "natural number?" Because if not, a disambiguation page is called for by that passage (the opening sentence) of WP:D. The term "whole numbers" may refer to natural numbers (which can itself have one of two meanings, both of which are discussed on that page quite handily) or integers. That's the very meaning of disambiguation. The page as written now perfectly matches with this, it's just the linking which is wrong.

Also, to the IP editor: I never said this page should redirect to Sign (mathematics), I said it should link to it. Similar to the way the lead at natural number links to it; using it to provide definitional information in terms which don't have wikipedia articles, such as "non-negative integers". MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm saying that natural number is the primary topic for the search term whole number, not the only meaning. In that case, the search term is supposed to redirect to the primary topic, with some provision at that article to resolve the ambiguity for anyone who has a different notion in mind, usually a hatnote. --Trovatore (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's ideal, because I've heard the term used to refer to negative numbers many times. However, I could live with it, as long as it's made clear that there is ambiguity to the term. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sign (mathematics) is not used as a link in natural number anywhere. natural number is synonymous to whole number per the following on natural number:

Likewise, some authors use the term whole number to mean a natural number including 0; some use it to mean a natural number excluding 0; while others use it in a way that includes both 0 and the negative integers, as an equivalent of the term integer.

— Weisstein, Eric W. "Counting Number". MathWorld. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |id2= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |title2= ignored (help)

174.3.125.23 (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

1: Your quote flatly contradicts your claim and reinforces what I've said here. In fact, it is exactly what I said here, only re-phrased. Maybe you should have read it before copying and pasting it, because "X can means Y, Z or N," is obviously not the same thing as "X always means Y," especially when "Y sometimes means Y, and other times means Z," is true, but not stated here.

2: Natural number contains a link to non-negative in the phrase "non-negative integers," just as I originally posted. Non-negative is a redirect to Sign (mathematics)#Terminology for signs. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I shall include the previous sentence:

The term counting number is also used to refer to the natural numbers (either including or excluding 0). Likewise, some authors use the term whole number to mean a natural number including 0; some use it to mean a natural number excluding 0; while others use it in a way that includes both 0 and the negative integers, as an equivalent of the term integer.

— Weisstein, Eric W. "Counting Number". MathWorld. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |id2= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |title2= ignored (help)

It states that a counting number is also used to refer to a natural number (synonymous). The next sentence starts with "likewise". This word "likewise" connects the term "whole number" to the previous idea explaining that the ideas in both sentences are analogous. The prose does not indicate "Y sometimes means Y, and other times means Z", nor does it differentiate "X can means Y, Z or N", but lastly, this isn't important as, as I have mentioned, we have many references which uses "whole number" in different definitions but consistent in the single paper being published.174.3.125.23 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It states that a counting number is also used to refer to a natural number (synonymous).

Synonymity is not the issue, exclusivity is. "Hare" is also used to refer to rabbits. "Cockroach" is also used to refer to palmetto bugs. "White" is also used to refer to Caucasian ancestry. "Cold blooded" is also used to refer to non empathic personalities. "Green" is also used to refer to cyan. "Round" is also used to refer to spherical (or cylindrical) objects. Just because a word is ambiguous doesn't make it synonymous with one of its uses. "Big" is exclusively synonymous with "large," because anytime you use the word "big," you could substitute it with "large" without changing the meaning. That is not true with "whole number" and "natural number," when -as your source admits- "whole number" may be used to refer to all integers, all non-negative integers, or all positive integers. That makes it an ambiguous term.

Finally, you need to scroll up and read my last response to Trovatore, because you're arguing (badly) for something I already agreed to, thereby accomplishing nothing beyond convincing me of your inability to argue well. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, no, there's no misinterpretation of the source. The definition of synonym is quite broad and narrow at the same time. Words are grey unlike the black and whiteness of math.174.3.125.23 (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are you arguing with? It can't be me, because you're not responding to anything I've said, but something different. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirect Target

Any change to this redirect's target should be discussed on this page before being made. This is a section in which such discussions can occur. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we should go back to some version of the disambiguation. Whether the term refers to positive integers, non-negative integers, or all integers is genuinely ambiguous, and the reader is not well-served by a redirect to any of these locations. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree, however the consensus the last time this was discussed was to redirect to natural number. As such, I'm content to let that stand until we can achieve a consensus for making this a disambiguation page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Talk:Natural number

Ah why doesn't positive integers redirect to integers?

Ah, and why doesn't whole numbers redirect over there also, as there is a discussion of whole numbers there. Now MjolnirPants has sent me a talk note saying that whole numbers are unrelated to Integers. Can you or anyone else providing the reasoning that lead to this?

In reading the comments about whole numbers, here and elsewhere, I have noticed a couple of things. Firstly, you don't find the set of 'whole numbers' referred to in formal works, but in contrast it is common in lower grade texts.

'Whole' itself is used as a adjective to mean there is no fractional part. Hence if the adjective is applied before the number zero is taught, wholes are positive integers. If it is applied before negatives are taught, whole is non-negatives. Otherwise it is identical to integers.

The word integer itself is Latin from 'untouched' apparently thus undivided and whole. I.e. this concept of wholeness is central to integers, why not direct over there? And if not there, and there must be an explanation of school books etc, why not give it a wikipage. Why muddle the Natural numbers pages with a new issue concept of fraction and whole? Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Good points. "Whole number" is a grade school term. I doubt it needs an entire article to itself. And I also doubt we need an article on "positive integers".

The Peano Axioms you copies are the wrong Peano Axioms (they are Peano's Axioms, and only some of them). I'll try to fix it. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't see the modern list on the Peano's axioms page then? I liked their explanation of why zero is commonly included, as one needs an additive identity. Can that go somewhere? Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

 

1. I most certainly did not say that whole numbers were unrelated to integers and the evidence is right there on your talk page of that. What I said was that 'natural number' is more closely related than 'integer'. I said this due to the fact that the integers include negative numbers, and there are few (if any) definitions of 'whole number' which include negative numbers. Please attempt to at least maintain the appearance of honesty and cooperation, I think you'd be surprised at how easy I am to get along with when you're behaving civilly and reasonably.

2. The redirect to this page was arrived at by a consensus. A single dissenting voice -even if it is your own- does not override that.

3. Redirects exist to help people find what they are searching for by allowing for a wide variety of article titles to link to a single page. In this case, "whole number" is indeed a grade school term that does not deserve its own article. There is an indexed article by that name because most people don't know more than grade school math and still use the term, and it is a redirect to this article precisely because it does not deserve its own article. The etymology and precise definitions of the words 'integer' and 'whole' are irrelevant. It is how the terms are used which is important here. So while the term 'whole number' may indeed at one point have been a synonym for 'integer', it is no longer used that way, and thus the redirect reflects current use.

4. If there is a discussion of the term elsewhere which you think is very useful, feel free to copy it here. I would suggest summarizing it and including it in the lead paragraph.

5. This discussion does not belong here. I created a section to discuss that redirect on the appropriate page: Talk:Whole number. I will give you enough time to read this before I move this whole discussion to the appropriate page. Please do not reply here, but on the page I linked to. I will happily refactor the combined discussion there. Again, all discussion of where Whole number should redirect to should be held on Talk:Whole number. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Here I am asking why the positive integers redirect here. I was also curious to know your view on whole numbers not being related to integers. I didn't see that to be the same issue, but sure move it up if you like. I can see that.

Yeah, positive integer seems too small to be a page to itself. But whi is it not pointing to integer? Thomas Walker Lynch (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As I have already explained once and will not explain again: I did not say that 'whole number' was not related to 'integer'. Read my response above, and read my initial comment on it if you still have trouble understanding this.

As far as the issue of what page to redirect to goes, there are three possible meanings of the term 'whole number':

1. Non-negative integers.
2. Positive integers.
3. Integers.

Of those three, the first two are the most common usages. In my own experience, I have never seen 'whole number' used to refer to negative integers, but other editors have cited sources which purport to do so. The first two definitions are by far the most common, and Natural number covers both of those definitions. Therefore, it was decided by consensus to redirect to Natural number with a hat note that explained that 'whole number' redirects to that page, but could also refer to 'integer', along with a link to Integer. That was the most logical conclusion, given that there was no consensus to leave Whole number a disambiguation page.

My personal choice would be to make Whole number a disambiguation page, with three entries as shown above. The first two would link to Natural number and the last to Integer. Barring that, however, the current situation is ideal from where I sit. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MjolnirPants. I am waiting for the extensive discussion at Talk:Natural_number to die down, in case anything relevant to this page develops there. Maproom (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguate and be done with it

I went ahead and turned this back into a basic disambiguation page. "Whole number" as a term is used to mean both natural number (which may or may not include 0) and integer. Every dictionary I've checked lists both as possible definitions. Conventions in math texts vary. Anyone searching for "whole number" might mean either target, with no clear primary. I only even found out about this because of someone found the use of "whole number" at Talk:0 inherently ambiguous. In that case, the article text was clarified, but in general, a disambiguation page is the way to go here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is OK with me as long as it stays a disambig page (a pure navigational tool with no expository content whatsoever). The reason it was made a redirect (which I thought was "being done with it") was that people kept trying to add content here, which was inappropriate. I do think the "integer" meaning is somewhat uncommon, and the situation was explained at natural number, so that's my preferred solution. --Trovatore (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I want to revisit WP:DABCONCEPT. There is a broad article about football that encompasses both traditional soccer and American "carry" football. Similarly, I wrote a paragraph about whole numbers as integers vs whole numbers as natural numbers in Integer#History, and I think it would better live here. A second paragraph would reiterate the zero vs non-zero ambiguity. It wouldn't be a long article but I think actually explaining the source of the different conventions is more useful than a simple DAB. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I would be sharply opposed to that. As I understand it, DABCONCEPT is for things like "center of a triangle" where there is a common motivating concept, expressed in different ways. I don't think there's any such thing here, not in any nontrivial way. There's just a phrase that has two different definitions. That's not a topic for a Wikipedia article. --Trovatore (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)