Talk:Arithmetic

I tried to create an overall structure for a textbook. I freely admit that, while I did look over the guidelines, I didn't actually study them, and mainly used as my starting point my general understanding of how a textbook should be structured. If that conflicts with specific Wikibooks guidelines, I apologize and if the deviations are so glaring as to be irreconcilable, please feel free to reverse all my changes.

My intention was to have a textbook that could be used to step-by-step learn the discipline, as opposed to a more encyclopedic-style reference book organized into sections, which is what it seemed was the trend. Originally I had planned on taking the already existing material and putting it into its slots, but I quickly noticed that some of those other pages needed to be divided among various chapters so I left it for future edits.

My justifications for the progression I chose (and why I included some topics that may seem to be outside the scope of arithmetic) are varied by decision. Instead of trying to explain everything here, I'll hope that most of the decisions seem to make sense on their own and the ones that don't I'm happy to discuss individually, and at any rate I'm sure everything I've done can be improved upon greatly by other writers.

My plan is first to wait a few days and see if I'm not reversed immediately or that there are no vehement objections to the way I've ordered things. If not, or if the objections can be resolved, the next step is I'll begin to write the overview chapters (the first chapter, as well a the first chapter in each part) so that other authors can see my focus on what should be addressed (obviously, other authors should feel free to beat me to the punch or change focus where it seems necessary). From there, it's just a matter of filling in the material. What I was aiming for is a structure where everything you need to know to understand any given chapter has already been addressed in the previous chapters (in other words, for example, "Exponents" precedes "Scientific Notation" because you have to already know about exponents to understand scientific notion, and multiplication and decimals precede both of them for the same reasons).

Again, my apologies if I've done this completely wrong. I won't be at all offended if I'm reversed for misunderstanding the goal or method. Peter Alan McAllister 19:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A skeleton is better than nothing, so I'm glad you made one. However, there's no need for so many subsections, so I'm in the process of removing them. Hoogli 15:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the merger into Math for the Young still being considered? If it is, I vote no--we shouldn't assume that only kids are still in the process of learning arithmetic. If it's not, the flag should be removed. --Ebrillblaiddes (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

teachers addition
has there been a teachers edition of these books proposed? then there could be a version for students... and a version for teachers with answers and quizzes... --71.182.83.64 (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging the pre-existing content
I'm going to merge all of the content at the bottom that was taken from overflow from Algebra. Once I'm all done I'm going to flag all of the duplicate material for speedy deletion. Please voice any objections, or let me know if this is not in accordance with accepted deletion policy. Atrytone (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link in the table of contents to Arithmetic/Multiplication (which I've nominated for speedy deletion, as all the content is in Multiplication and Division as well as the link to the deleted page titled 'Division'. Now there is simply the Multiplication and Division section. Atrytone (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I moved some links to the main table of contents in order to integrate entire sections of the pre-existing content into the structure of the book. I removed the link in the table of contents to Arithmetic/Introduction as the material is duplicated in Arithmetic/Introduction to Arithmetic in the main table of contents. I removed the link in the table of contents to Arithmetic/Reading Serial Numbers, Account Numbers, et cetera and nominated the page for speedy deletion because the content is minimal and not necessary for the scope of the book. Atrytone (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

general or introductory?
This was moved from general to introductory. I do not really know why there is a difference, but there is a fundamental theorem of arithmetic, after all (which I added,) which is taught in high-level college courses: I would not call that introductory, though it may be taught in high school Algebra, and maybe in advanced elementary or middle school math, I think.--Dchmelik (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Beginner?
Is "beginner" really the intended reading level for this book? --Histrion (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If not — if "intermediate" is more appropriate — then the front page needs to be edited.
 * If so, a lot of the text that's already here will need to be rewritten, and some sections could probably be dropped. Also, per the description of "beginner" reading level, perhaps the whole thing should be moved to "Wikijunior".


 * I don't think this particular book has a lot of active contributors at the moment, though I could be wrong. Either way, I think you make a good point and went ahead and changed it to intermediate.  Thenub314 (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)