Talk:Modulo (mathematics)

I'd hardly call this "general use". More like "jargon". - furrykef (Talk at me) 11:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You have a point. All the meanings of modulo had been put together at modular arithmetic. I untangled them, but was not quite sure how to name them. So you say moving this to modulo (jargon) is more appropriate?

Could you take a look at modulo and tell me if you have any suggestions? Thanks for your feedback!Oleg Alexandrov | talk 16:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. - furrykef (Talk at me) 17:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Additional jargon
I came to the web looking for the right way to spell "modding out (by/the ...)" (which must be spelled right because it redirects to modular arithmetic). This seems to be the place to put that additional jargon, so that's where I'm putting it. -- Yoda of Borg (✉) 14:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  NNADI GOOD LUCK  ( Talk &#124; Contribs ) 06:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Modulo (jargon) → Modulo (mathematics) – this article is about a mathematical term, and "mathematics" a more precise qualifier than "jargon" - see WP:PRECISE for policy Coastside (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is an interesting case. The page Modulo (jargon) has become what Modulo used to be before Modulo's contents were merged to Modulo (jargon) and Modulo was turned into a disambiguation page. See and . Pre-merge, Modulo (jargon) really used to be about the (often colloquial and non-mathematical and quite often ironic) use of the phrase "modulo" to describe all kinds of situations that considered equal "modulo" differences considered unimportant, similarly to Up to. Modulo used to end with
 * In the mathematical community, the word modulo is also used informally, in many imprecise ways. Generally, to say "A is the same as B modulo C" means, more-or-less, "A and B are the same except for differences accounted for or explained by C". See modulo (jargon).
 * After the merge, step by step, the original content of Modulo (jargon) was removed, and as the article stands now, the suggested move seems appropriate. – Tea2min (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, Modulo (jargon) should be the primary topic with Modulo arithmetic and Modulo operator subtopics that have their own articles. The modulo (jargon) article already links to them in the body of the article.  The current Modulo page should be Modulo (disambiguation).   Seems the history is a bit perverse, but as they stand, that would be appropriate I would say.  When the dust settles, I'll take a look at the article links to Modulo (jargon) and see if they use modulo in a general mathematical sense or if they should point to one of the subtopics.  If there are legacy links in articles that use the word in a non-mathematical sense, i.e., as jargon that is not mathematical, then it may make sense to point to the wiktionary definition of modulo. Not sure if there will be any though. Thoughts? Coastside (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I (weakly) disagree that what is now at Modulo (jargon) should be given priority over either Modulo arithmetic or Modulo operator as the primary topic, in the sense of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As it stands now, Modulo (jargon) is basically a broad-concept article (WP:Broad-concept article) competing with the proper disambiguation page we have now at Modulo, hovering somewhere between mathematical terminology, mathematical jargon, computer jargon and folklore. But as I said, I really do not have a strong opinion one way or the other. (I just noticed to my surprise that Modulo (jargon) is not linked to from List of mathematical jargon.) – Tea2min (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, that leaves us at the simple page move as per the original suggestion, unless there are objections from anyone.Coastside (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As a followup, I did a quick scan of articles that link to Modulo (jargon) and they all seem to use modulo in a mathematical sense, so linking to Modulo (mathematics) would be fine. Or if we change this to be the primary topic, they could link to that.Coastside (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 28 December 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Modulo operation moved to Modulo and Modulo moved to Modulo (disambiguation). Modulo (mathematics) to be merged into the base article. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

– The above move discussion appears to be rather unclear and essentially included only 2 participants. I have therefore pinged the participants in the previous discussion and the page's [//xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Modulo_(mathematics)#top-editors top editors] with the hope of procuring a rather more rigorous discussion and clear consensus. Apologies that the following reason is rather extensive and badly structured; my main opinion for what should be done is in the bottom two paragraphs, with the top paragraph being an alternative move request if my preferred argument proves to be against concensus. I have put notices on the talk pages of the other articles listed at Modulo (disambiguation), where it is not automatically done by a bot.
 * Modulo (mathematics) → ?
 * Modulo → ?
 * Modulo operation → ?

The most easily presentable issue is that we have had this page moved to 'Modulo (mathematics)', in a way which suggests that it is a primary topic out of the three pages listed on Modulo (disambiguation). I have doubts as to the validity of this, which I'll discuss later, but assuming that this is the case, then we must ask ourselves: is it the primary topic over the other two (non-mathematical) entries on the dab page? [//pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2020-03&end=2022-11&pages=Modulo_operation%7CModular_arithmetic%7CModulo_(mathematics)%7CFerrari_Modulo%7CM%C3%B3dulo Pageview statistics], at time of writing, show that this page has a comparable view-count to Ferrari Modulo (slightly above, but not much; 73,518 vs. 67,072 since a month after the above move), and distinctly higher views than Módulo (73,518 vs. 1,178 since March 2020). However, if we aggregate (average) the pageviews from all three of the mathematical articles, this gives us $$\frac{1,544,981+1,166,346+73,518}{3} = 928,281\frac{2}{3}$$ views since March 2020, which is markedly higher than both of the other uses. This strongly suggests that the mathematical articles as a subset form the primary topic, and thus (if we agree with the apparent outcome of the last discussion) it still seems sensible that this page should be the primary topic.

With a risk of creating some controversy, I do wish to disagree with the previous discussion which resulted in us classifying this article as the primary topic for the mathematical uses of 'Modulo'. This argument was slightly mentioned before, by User:Tea2min, but it was not, in my view, very well-presented. I disagree with Teahouse's assertion that this article is a broad-concept article; it seems like more of a article about a word; it does not particularly describe the shared features of the uses of 'Modulo' and how these are all versions of the same concept (in the manner of other broad-concept articles like particle and football), but rather appears to be a description of each of the usages, with possibly some detail of their relationship with each-other but not their relation to an overall broad-concept (this is the manner of articles about words, such as Macedonia (terminology)). The difference is very slight, but the guideline that broad-concepts are primary topics I don't think ought to be applied to word articles. I do, therefore, propose that we should move this article to 'Modulo (word)', or possibly move this back to the old title, if people think that is more appropriate. In addition to this theoretical argument of significance, [//pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Modulo_operation%7CModular_arithmetic%7CModulo_(mathematics)%7CFerrari_Modulo%7CM%C3%B3dulo pageview statistics] do strongly suggest that (even with the current title bias) Modulo operation and Modular arithmetic are both much more popular articles to read than this, with 1,544,981 and 1,166,346 views respectively, against this article's 73,518 views.

Having moved this page, we come to the question of whether there is a primary topic, or if we should redirect this page's current title to the disambiguation page. It is my view that Modulo operation is the primary topic, and we should redirect both 'Modulo (mathematics)' and 'Modulo' to it, with a redirect hatnote. My reasons for this are as follows. [//pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Modulo_operation%7CModular_arithmetic%7CModulo_(mathematics)%7CFerrari_Modulo%7CM%C3%B3dulo Pageview statistics] show 'Modulo operation' and 'Modular arithmetic' as overwhelmingly more popular than all other articles in question. Of these two, I think that Modulo operation (which has the slightly higher view-rate) is a natural disambiguation &mdash; it is normally actually referred to as 'Modulo', but titled differently on Wikipedia for clarity — whereas 'Modular arithmetic' is not typically referred to by the term 'Modulo', although it's full name is nonetheless closely related. In addition, [//pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2022-11&pages=Modulo_operation%7CModular_arithmetic pageviews] do show a consistent and long-standing favour to 'Modulo operation', at 4,416,430 versus 3,218,039 since the start of monitoring in July 2015.

Again sorry for the length of the my discussion point, and please can some people comment anyway and form a consensus! — WT79 (speak to &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia/WT79 editing analysis] &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/globalcontribs/WT79 edit list]) 15:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Can we just merge all three into one 'Modulo' article?—blindlynx 19:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * What would merging the articles achieve? I do not think that it would improve clarity and ease of navigation (my rationale for the move discussion). I think that we might easily create an article with not too much content but one which does not simply explain to readers what any one of these three concepts (modulo operation, modular arithmetic, and 'up to') mean. —WT79 (speak to &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia/WT79 editing analysis] &#124; [//xtools.wmflabs.org/globalcontribs/WT79 edit list]) 12:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry 'Modulo (mathematics)'. This article and modulo arithmetic are related enough that there joining them would provide clarity for most readers—blindlynx 17:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Modulo indicates that people are going out around equally towards those two pages, and the third one trailing a bit, so either there's genuine ambiguity or we're just navigating people wrong :) I'd be inclined to think the former. Sounds like the best way to make a change would be to draft what you think would be a good a broad concept article? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry to complicate the discussion even more, but modulo (mathematics) deals with the very same concept as up to, and these articles should be merged. I don't have an opinion about which title the merged article should have. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * all four articles are short and can be merged together and cleaned up a bit—blindlynx 21:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree:


 * Modulo → Modulo (disambiguation)
 * Modulo operation → Modulo   # other uses hatnote pointing to new disambig page
 * Modulo (mathematics) : Merge short article into a section of new "Modulo" primary

KelleyCook (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Support this.
 * Ortizesp (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-move actions
I have moved the pages. I moved Modulo operation to Modulo, but not sure if that is correct. Should "Modulo operation" remain with the same name and have a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT from "Modulo"? Vpab15 (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)