User talk:Chapmath

Cistercian
This looks like a single-purpose account, but in case you come back, no, the stave wasn't used by itself in Cistercian notation. That's a modern extrapolation. In texts there was no zero. — kwami (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Modern extrapolation or not, Cistercian Notation, with a single glyph, is able to indicate a 0 (to paraphrase the article). This is not a false statement. Just because the Cistercian numeral system was not historically used to represent 0, does not mean it is not capable of doing so. Chapmath (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no zero glyph. Errors in the popular press do not count. I challenge you to find any modern usage of the system that does. (The reason that it has not been accepted for Unicode is that there is no modern usage of the system.) — kwami (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * How about 3?
 * Numberphile video on Cistercian Numerals: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9p55Qgt7Ciw
 * https://www.dcode.fr/cistercian-numbers
 * https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Cistercian_numerals#:~:text=All%20Cistercian%20numerals%20begin%20with,surrounding%20the%20vertical%20line%20segment
 * Now, I would also like to point out that the wording in the article here states that the Cistercian Numerals are "able to indicate" and we both can clearly see that this number system is "able to".
 * Just because it historically wasn't used in this was does not mean that it is "able to".
 * Plus, as you can clearly see by my provided links, modern usage has changed. Chapmath (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no modern usage.
 * You need reliable sources.
 * Okay, let's claim that Roman numerals are "able to" indicate imaginary numbers, see how far that will get us. — kwami (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * so, I provide you with 3 examples of modern usages of zero with Cistercian Numerals and your response is to attempt to change the subject with a ridiculous claim about Roman Numerals. How is that reasonable argument?
 * It's okay to admit that you are incorrect. Chapmath (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Read the above. Follow the link so you understand what a 'reliable source' is.
 * You have not provided any examples of modern usage.
 * Okay, another ridiculous example (as ridiculous as the one you're making): if I make a video about Sumerian, and mispronounce Sumerian words, does that mean that "modern usage has changed", or just that I made an error? — kwami (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose if I wanted to find a Reliable Source, I could use one that is currently listed as a source on the Cistercian Numerals Wikipedia page, right?
 * For example, reference #15?
 * https://formulae.org/?example=Cistercian_numerals
 * This would be considered a Reliable Source, right?
 * So, there is another example of a modern usage.
 * Also, language evolves and changes. So, your example is bad. Chapmath (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, ignorance is not an argument. Come back when you understand the topic. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that you have referred to the use of zero as a "modern extrapolation" just proves my point that the system is able to represent a zero.
 * I have shown you many examples of people using zero in the system.
 * But, the fact remains that it is able to.
 * Perhaps you should just use more precise language in the article.
 * And then I will be happy to add a section on modern usages of the number system.
 * Because ultimately, we are arguing two different points and you are just being a pedant. Chapmath (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * THERE IS NO MODERN USAGE. If I'm wrong, please SHOW it. If you can show modern usage, we can request Unicode support for this system, which would be lovely. Because so far even the researchers into Cistercian say there is no need for Unicode support because no-one uses it. — kwami (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have shown you several examples of people using | to represent zero using Cistercian Numerals.
 * While it is not common,it is being used. Even you said that using | to represent zero is a "modern extrapolation." Which means that:
 * 1. You are aware of this usage (and just don't like it?)
 * 2. The numeral system is able to display zero (which is objectively true and has been my main argument from the beginning)
 * Just because people don't traditionally use this system to represent zero, doesn't mean that the system couldn't work with zero.
 * Now as far as providing you evidence, I have. I have even provided you a link from a source on this article that makes reference to the system being able to represent the numbers 0 - 9,999.
 * But,you are unwilling to acknowledge that there are people who are currently using this number system and using | to represent zero.
 * Are these uses scholarly? some yes, some no. One of the places where this system has been used in modern times is in enigmatology. And in these puzzles, zero has been adopted. The reason why is because the system is capable of representing the integer zero.
 * So, just because something historically was used one way, does not mean that it's usage can't change.
 * I will provide you with some additional places where people are currently using the Cistercian Numeral System and representing zero with |.
 * https://mathsbot.com/puzzles/cisterianNumerals
 * https://pcappcatalog.com/1594907571/cistercian-numerals
 * https://www.dcode.fr/cistercian-numbers
 * Even the National Catholic Register discuss how the integer zero can be represented by a plain stave. This article is interesting because they took a direct quote from the Wikipedia Page stating 1 to 9,999 and then immediately contradict themselves and explain how to represent zero.
 * https://www.ncregister.com/blog/cistercian-numerals-secret-code
 * So, as you can see, the Cistercian Numeral System is able to represent zero with a plain stave. And while historically, there was no need for the zero, in modern uses (which do exist), there has been a change. Chapmath (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You obviously still haven't read WP:RS. — kwami (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have.
 * I have also repeatedly shown you that you are completely incorrect about the modern usages of Cistercian Numerals.
 * I could continue to show you more and more examples where people are using | to represent zero, but it won't matter to you.
 * I'm sure you have not looked at a single example that I have shown you and that everything that I have written. And yet you call me an Ignorant POV Warrior.
 * Your arrogance and rudeness is disgusting. The level of anger and bias you brought to this debate (not really a debate because it is just you yelling and insulting me) is off putting and concerning.
 * Perhaps, with time, you will begin to see that there is a change in how Cistercian Numerals are being used because people have found a fun application for them. But, until then, you are clearly unwilling to listen to reason. But I think maybe you hate fun?
 * Anyways, I hope you have a terrible day. Chapmath (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Warning
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — kwami (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)