As an anonymous user, you can only add new data. If you would like to also modify existing data, please create an account and indicate your languages on your user page.

Expression talk:one

From OmegaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon tools.png
This article (one) needs attention because:
Misleading wording. The representation in (contemporary) Arab Script is ١, not 1. The same problem is likely to exist elsewere, too. --Purodha Blissenbach 10:50, 29 August 2006 (CEST)
It has been added to this category for attention. Thank you for your patience.


The current German definitione "die Ziffer '1'" is wrong - 'one' is the number one, not the digit one ;-) This may probably be true for several other languages as well. -- Purodha Blissenbach 14:39, 29 August 2006 (CEST)

I added back the definition "the symbol representing the number one", as it is a different sense of the word. --InfoCan 15:05, 20 March 2012 (CET)
But it is a bit strange, because "one" is not a symbol.
I was thinking of the sense used in the example sentence "A million is shown as a one followed by six zeros." It is the first element of the set {1234567890} (Arabic numerals), or the set {IVXLC...} (Roman numerals) --InfoCan 17:05, 20 March 2012 (CET)

Redundant definition[edit]

Icon tools.png
This article (one) needs attention because:
Redundant definition
It has been added to this category for attention. Thank you for your patience.

The following definitions are redundant: "The first natural number (1)" and "The cardinal number that directly follows zero and precedes two, represented in Roman numerals as I, and in Arabic numerals as 1". I propose to delete the first one. The same problem exists for the Expressions "two", "three", etc. --InfoCan 15:05, 20 March 2012 (CET)

I think this definition "The first natural number (1)" was meant to be the same as what you tried to define above "the symbol representing the number one", which in Wiktionary is defined as "The digit or figure 1." (which is the noun definition of "one", as opposed to the cardinal number which we already have). I would tend to prefer the definition from Wiktionary. --Kip 16:19, 20 March 2012 (CET)