Talk:Pentadic numerals

Poor reasoning
On the other hand, any authentic find of the use of pentimal numbers in positional notation in Middle Ages Scandinavia would be strong evidence of the authenticity of the North American stones.

I've deleted this, as it constitutes a mistaken line of reasoning known as argumentum ad logicam or argument from fallacy. Incidentally, I can't see the claim made anywhere in the article cited here to back it up: The Kensington Stone - Fiction or Historical Truth?. Nordling appears to already believe in the authenticity of the Kensington runestone, regardless of the lack of medieval verification for positional pentimal numerals. All he says on the Kensington numerals is that the carver used a kind of rune figures, the prototype of which are (sic.) found in a Latin book by Ole Worm printed in 1643. Since this supplies less information on pentimal numbers than the Wikipedia article itself, I don't think there's any harm in losing the link. Dependent Variable (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Move rationale
The move tool truncated the summary, cutting of the most important bit; the full summary was: "'Pentimal system' is more often used as a synonym for quinary, and is listed as such in dictionaries; therefore, it is a misleading and ambiguous title. None of the given references refer to it as such. 'Pentadic numerals' is a more straightforward translation of 'pentadiska siffor', follows the predictable pattern of naming articles about numeral systems '[adjective] numerals', is not easily confused with sound-alikes, and is actually used in reliable sources (as found via Google Scholar)." The new title is the term attested to in relevant scholarship. – Scyrme (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)