Talk:Multiplication sign

Bad title
i think this should be moved to Multiplcation symbolVincent.premysler 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)vincent


 * But this page is not only about the multiplication symbol. The cross product is a totally different operation for which the × notation is also used. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

well then this article should be moved to times sign and cross. dicklyon said so onis number sign ok Vincent.premysler 12:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)vincent


 * Well, the more accurate title should be Notation for the cross product, multiplication, and Cartesian product. I think × is the best name for the article, since the article is about the × symbol and its uses. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

but i think it would be hard to type it in with no redirect links and also i had a conflict with dicklyon about the title of number sign. i wanted to change the title of number sign to #. i dont like this. just move × to Notation for the cross product multiplication, and Cartesain product Vincent.premysler 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC) vincent


 * Vincent, did you see the movie Because I Said So with Diane Keaton? It's really terrible, but should clarify that "dicklyon said so" is not a sensible reason for anything.  If I were you, I'd make the argument like I made on the number sign page that we usually name articles by the name of their subject, not by the subject itself.  You can look up the preferred unicode name for ×, which I believe is multiplication sign, and you can look for examples of the names of other articles on punctuation and symbols, and try to make a case for what you are proposing.  If it comes down to just a disagreement between you and one other editor, you can call for a third opinion using WP:3O.  Welcome to wikipedia; not invest some energy in figuring out how it works. Dicklyon 17:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

it actually was with two other editors. Vincent.premysler 17:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC) vincent

we usally name articles by the name of the subject. Vincent.premysler 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC) vincent


 * Oleg, if I read his user page right, Vincent is a toddler, so we should perhaps give him some slack. Anyway, you can probably see my position, that using the character's name would be preferable to using the character itself as an article title.  We can still discuss its various meanings, and have redirects from alternative names.  But it's one character, and I don't see any precedent for naming articles on characters by the character itself.  What do you think?  Dicklyon 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that in general using characters that can't be typed as article title is not good. However, as far as this particular article is concerned, I have yet to see a good name for it (again, multiplication sign won't work, as one can use &midot; for multiplication, and &times; for things which are not multiplication). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it has much to do with whether the character can be typed. Look at number sign, which is easy to type; it has a myriad of names and uses, yet the article uses the preferred unicode name, which is not a bad convention.  All of its names and meanings are nevertheless discussed.  That precedent says your argument has not held sway in similar situations. Dicklyon 04:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note that +, -, –, %, ~, ^, $, @, =, `, \, ;, *, !, etc. are all redirects to names of the characters; so is / but it does't work as a wikilink. So, let's do it, OK?  Or do we need a third opinion? Dicklyon 05:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the hybrid name article refers to it as a "multiplication sign", and all of the listed mathematical uses are forms of multiplication or product computation (the monadic APL operator being the exception). Dicklyon 06:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, if you want to move it, fine with me. But then the double redirects need to be fixed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem; there's a bot that usually fixes them within a day if I don't get them all myself. Dicklyon 16:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Confusion
There are remarks about a similar glyph in Unicode for the vector or cross product, which say that this appears bigger than the normal times symbol. However, with the font my browser displays the page with, the vector product symbol is smaller than the times symbol. For comparison: U+00D7 = × (times), U+2A2F = ⨯ (vector product) I can't really confirm this now. If this can't be verified, should the size be mentioned at all? smiler (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That was my observation too. I can only assume that the previous statement was in error or that it varies widely by font. — CharlotteWebb 17:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Into?
I've never heard this called the "into" symbol. Can someone give a reference for this? --Doradus (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See below. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Into is not used for multipication
In mathematics, "into" is used only for division, not for multiplication. Probably this confusion came from Latin language. In Latin, "in" is used for multiplication to read multiplication sign.

For example, "Clavis Mathematicae" written by William Oughtred in page 7 describes "4 in 6 fiet 24". http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=Ld5EAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ja&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozycube (talk • contribs) 12:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless of its origin, the use of the word into to denote multiplication is common enough that it is listed under the definition of the word in the Oxford English Dictionary Online, with the example, "to multiply x into y".--Joshua Issac (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In the 1993 edition of OED, the definition of "into" meaning "to indicate multiplation" was marked as obsolete (as denoted by the dagger symbol and "Obs."). See screenshot here: http://i.imgur.com/lCRTd6Z.png I am henceforth removing this definition from the page. 73.170.55.160 (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Dot symbol?
Isn't a dot (interpunct) also used as a multiplication sign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.221.57.236 (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say there are many different symbols used as the multiplication sign, so currently the article does not correspond to the general view on the subject. So, the caption in the image, as describing "the" multiplication sign is not entirely true, because this is not the only one. I was introduced to the dot symbol as being "the multiplication sign" - verified by basically all mathematics I have encountered every since - and it is true in the context of all math education within one nation, for example. Mstuomel (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * From what I've understood, "×" is used in everyday life and "·" in mathematics. We were clearly told in math class that "×" is used for cross product of two vectors. Interpunct article though says "×" is often used in English-speaking countries. But it is often used in other countries, too, since the use of vectors in everyday life isn't that common. 85.217.15.230 (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Personal anecdote from the UK: at first school and middle school, when maths lessons were really just arithmetic, the only symbol we used for multiplication was the cross. (And likewise, division was always represented by an obelus (÷), although we didn't call it that).  It was only at higher levels, when we started on algebra and the like that we switched to using the interpunct for multiplacation (when we couldn't get away with using nothing at all), and the slash for division. Iapetus (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Personal anecdote from DK: In Denmark, from primary schools up to universities I am quite sure that "·" is used almost exclusively, (at university level, foreign language textbooks (mostly English) are sometimes used which could use different conventions, but here juxtaposition is used more frequently anyway, with "·" and "×" being used for dot and cross products.) And I really think this article should be split in two, one about Multiplication Symbol (mathematical notation) and one about Multiplication Sign (character glyph).

Is 'x' ever preferable to '×'?
I was reviewing an article about a musician, and a table in the article included record sales. A few albums were noted as 2x platinum, a shorthand for "double platinum", meaning sales of 2 million units. I thought about changing it to 2× platinum and then decided I had no idea if convention made the 'x' more correct than '×'. Any one? jameslucas (" " / +) 16:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

In Computer Software
The article states that the multiplication symbol can be typed on a Mac using Shift+Option+. This just gives me a a breve (˘) (UK Keyboard, OS X 10.10.4). Does this key combination generate a × on any other keyboard? Or is it from a previous version of OS X? St3f (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

How do I type "×" ?
I apologize for my lack of technical expertise, but how exactly do I type the multiplication symbol (×)? There's no "×" key on my keyboard, and while there are 254 alt codes (most of which are useless), none of them yield "×" (which would be useful). Go figure. :-\  So how do I type a "×" when I need it? (For this comment, I've been copying and pasting the "×" symbol from this article itself. But that's clumsy and shouldn't be necessary.)   Captain Quirk (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

ALT+0215 does it. There are a LOT more ALT-codes than just 254, although the "extra" ones may not be officially-recognized. My favorites are ALT+0151 and ALT+0153, for the grammatically-proper—though rarely-used—em-dash, and the Always Useful At Expressing Sarcasm™ trademark sign. ;) Sandwich (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Multiplication sign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100109121013/http://www.apple.com/de/pro/tips/specialchar.html to http://www.apple.com/de/pro/tips/specialchar.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025090903/http://www.typografie.info/typowiki/index.php?title=Mac_Zeichenpalette to http://www.typografie.info/typowiki/index.php?title=Mac_Zeichenpalette

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed replacement lead section
In Unicode, multiplication sign, also known as the times sign or the dimension sign, is the symbol ×. While similar to a lowercase X|latin letter X (x), the form is properly a rotationally symmetric saltire. Other signs (or even no sign) are used, according to mathematical context or national convention.

Discussion
Per earlier discussions, the lead should reflect the fact that other signs are used for multiplication. This is in the body but should be summarised in the lead. This is a draft for discussion, observations and suggestions are invited. The change is to give equal status in the infobox to the four most used signs, add a prefix to the first sentence and add a second sentence: the proposed changes are written in green, except "latin letter X" which is wlinked and thus blue. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Is the term "multiplication sign" used for the dot or other signs? It appears that the term "multiplication sign" means this symbol. It does not mean "the only symbol used for mulitiplication". I do think the "In Unicode" prefix is very strange, as it certainly is not true, this symbol is called "multiplication sign" by people not using Unicode.Spitzak (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Dictionaries differ as to whether the "multiplication sign" is just × or whether any symbol specifying multiplication qualifies.The Wiktionary definition is
 * Any symbol (in particular × or · or *) used to denote the operation of multiplication.
 * The phrase "in Unicode" provides a further qualification, picking out × uniquely. Peter Brown (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Spitzak's point is a valid one, it is an ugly qualification but I can't think of a better one. There is more than one multiplication sign but this is the one that the Unicode Consortium has chosen to call "multiplication sign". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "or even no sign" suggests that the usage is rare. But which is more familiar:  or  ?
 * Peter Brown (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hence my awkward phrase "depending on mathematical context". In elementary school, you would certainly use an explicit sign but in University you would never do so. I don't know when it changes. But at least adjacency is not a sign so we don't have to go into any more details in the lead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think "no sign" has to be mentioned at all. As far as I can tell the term "multiplication sign" is never used for "the nothing between two terms that are multiplied".Spitzak (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I Agree. Peter Brown (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't this be fixed with a "This article is about the symbol ×. For other symbols used to indicate multiplication, see ..."?Spitzak (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Somehow we need to recognise that this is not the only multiplication sign. That was my first idea but it came unstuck on the adjacency notation and because for doesn't allow redirect to section. But it occurs to me now that maybe we could use a hatnote? Like:
 * Does that work better for everyone? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You could probably remove that entire section and redirect at tthe top to Multiplication.Spitzak (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But that fails to acknowledge that there are at least four multiplication signs. The Unicode Consortium has tagged one of them with this name but it does not invalidate the others. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find the proposed addition of "In Unicode" frankly bizarre. "Outside Unicode", how is anything true about this symbol any less true? Imaginatorium (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Outside Unicode, the multiplication sign is often not ×. In  Microsoft Excel, for example, it is *.
 * Outside Unicode, the multiplication sign is often not ×. In  Microsoft Excel, for example, it is *.


 * I think that the section Similar notations is worth while. However, JMF should suppress the #: "... see Similar notations below."
 * Peter Brown (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Bizarre' is a bit strong but right at the top I said it is 'awkward' and asked for better suggestions. The fact remains that it is only the multiplication sign because the Unicode Consortium said so. De facto, the UC is the pre-eminent authority on glyphs so × should be first among equals, but we can't pretend it is unique. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, no. The Unicode Consortium generally does a good job, but it is a hacking job, to provide an encoding standard which can provide round-trip compatibility will all sorts of national character sets, some of which include varying degrees of idiocy. It is not in any sense whatsoever an authority on glyphs, or the real-world meaning of anything, least of all the words it chooses for its ugly OFFICIAL NAMES. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * yes of course, I exposed the # for this discussion to try to make clear it is an in-page link rather than to another page. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Um, well, you have to decide what the topic of this article is. Above, it seems to be that it refers to ×, the cross-shaped sign, which I will refer to as "cross" for convenience ("cross-multiplication" being someting entirely different). If so, then this is what "multiplication sign" refers to, whether inside or outside Unicode (whatever that means, exactly). In almost any computing context, WIOOU, the asterisk is used to represent multiplication, at least for programming purposes. But "inside Unicode", the Unicode representation of the cross, is just that, a representation, which can happily be used to represent the concept of multiplication (not the programming implementation of multiplication), even in some Microsoft spreadsheet. Meanwhile, "outside Unicode" would cover all digital implementations not being Unicode, and all non-digital representations of cross to mean multiplication. Prefacing an article on a symbol with "In Unicode" makes about as much sense as prefacing an article on geometry with "In the State of Florida". Imaginatorium (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It may be apocryphal but wasn't there a state that declared that "the value of pi shall be three exactly" because that is what the Good Book says, so your Florida example might be true :-) To be serious, I am not defending the Unicode prefix, it was a placeholder for something better. But in any case the discussion has moved on – to Spitzak's idea of using a hatnote to solve the problem a different way. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Alternative proposal coming
FYI, I asked that the discussion above be closed because it was clear that nobody liked my wonderful idea. By the end, even I didn't like it either. It seemed best to just shut it down so as to start again with a clean sheet. I plan to open another informal RFC, this time based on 's idea of just having an about hatnote but, as it is August, it is only fair that I wait a few weeks before doing so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

History
Everything I've written in this section comes either from the Cajori source, or from Oughtred's Clavis, the relevant sentence of which I translated from Latin with the assistance of Google Translate. The prior text claimed that the sign was in use before Oughtred, but when I checked the source, I saw that those "prior uses" are mentioned only for the purpose of showing that they are mistaken. A source must not be cited to support a claim that the source specifically rejects. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but especially for checking and falsifying an invalid citation. Can you be more specific about the sources (like, where they can be found, so that someone else can repeat your investigation). Verbatim quotes would be welcome, text in Latin is fine. It is probably easier to put the material here first so that it can then be worked up into standard form. Getting it right is more important than getting it pretty. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I should also have said that Wikipedia doesn't like unattributed passive voice ("it has been said") because of the risk of abuse: such phrases always need immediate citation even if it repeats a citation at the end of the sentence. As I have just done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The Latin text, from page 10 here, is: Multiplicatio speciosa connectit utramque magintudinem propositam cum notâ in vel &times;: vel plerumque absque notâ, si magnitudines denotentur unica litera.

Clavis is an algebra text and the usage of "speciosa" comes from Diophantus, who used eidos (Latin species) to mean square numbers, cubic numbers, etc., and later Vieta, who meant any quantity represented by a letter. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is ideal. I will update the article accordingly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)