Talk:Tuple

Names for tuples of specific lengths

This section is unsourced. Even if it would be sourced it would not belong to this article, per WP:DICT. Although this could suffices to delete this section, these are not the main reason for deleting the section.

The article is about a mathematical concept called a "tuple". Therefore, for appearing in the section, a word must be commonly used to denote a mathematical tuple. This not the case here. Most of the names are not commonly used, and most of those that are commonly used are not used for refering to a mathematical tuple. For example, a quartet is not a tuple, but a musical group. Also, the words with the suffixe "uple" that are not created specifically for this article refer generally to multiples rather to tuples. The few words that are used for tuples, either appear already in the lead (singleton, ordered pair), or are those with the suffixe "plet" (triplet, quadruplet, etc). They are used for tuples in French, but I am not certain that they have exactly the same meaning in English. If they have, it is easy to add them in a single sentence in the lead. No need of a specific section.

So, this section is not worth for this article. It is also very confusing, as presenting as synonyms words that are far to be synonyms.

As all what precedes is based on common sense and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, restoring this section requires to be strongly motivated here. D.Lazard (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Officially Wikipedia Has No other tuple list so for people to learn so either add a multiple list or revert to my version ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CD:C881:38C0:399F:6C25:28F4:ED10 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need such a list. You can host it on your personal website or social media account. quattuordecuple, sexvigintuple, milluple, ronnuple, googuple, etc. are somewhere between vanishingly obscure and just made up. –jacobolus (t) 01:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

For now, I consider it sufficient just to delete the section which is unsourced for 8 months. If somebody comes up with a reliable source, the discussion here may be resumed. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I concur. "Googuple" was invented in the section immediately above, for heaven's sake. Wikipedia is not the place to deposit things somebody made up one day. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

As consensus appears to be running against this section, and the IP has been blocked, I removed the section again. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Having had a look at what was being put in I agree it doesn't belong. In fact I think 'Crush Kill Destroy!" from Lost in Space would about describe my feelings. :-) NadVolum (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with D.Lazard's argument above. In addition that table significantly impaired the readability/visual appearance of the article, Flooding the screen directly after the lead with completely marginal information, the encyclopedic value of which seems rather dubious at best.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I've inserted a shorter list of tuple names in English number words. fgnievinski (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment to Infinite tuple concept

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Speedy close. In addition to the last three posts below, I notice immediately that the statement is non-neutral, lengthy, and possibly too complicated for a non-mathematician to follow. In view of the latter, a direct request at WT:MATH would have been a better approach than an RfC which pulls in varied people from across the community. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

---

I would like to ask comments with argumentation for or against infinite tuple concept, by which I call a presence of Infinite Tuple on Tuple page.

The problem was discussed between a couple of mathematicians with no argumentation against the concept other than missing external citations. I think there should rather be discussion about arguments in general instead of just resources. The argumentation for the concept is based on axioms of Set theory namely ZFC and mainly Axiom of choice.

The opponents of the concept already attempted to ban me and separate me from editing of English Wiki. I was unbanned then, but I don't see reasonable to follow aggressive bilateral disputation with undoing actions of each other. So, I'm asking third party experts form participation in dispute.

My opinion is, that infinite tuple is inherently here, regardless how we call it. Therefore, we should not try to find different term, but rather we should note it on the tuple page. Argumentation for can be most simply based on Axiom of choice of ZFC, which effectively defines infinite Cartesian product, which is quoted on its wiki page. If we have infinite Cartesian product, which is apparently true, then I believe, we should have defined also infinite Tuple. We define the tuple most simply as function of natural number (as set (mathematics)). Infinite tuple is then simply function of ordinal number (as set (mathematics)).

So, please, give me independent opinion to my conclusions and relevancy of noting infinite Tuple on tuple page.

I already asked my colleague from studies on Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University for an opinion. He said, that he intuitively understood Tuple as finite but the presence of infinite Tuple on tuple page counts logical and needed.

It is so tiny problem, or no problem at all, that I'm surprised, that it triggered so much animosity. It should have been solved on talk page of the topic and it was attempted by my side. However, no compromise was reached there. Rbrane7 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The concept that Rbrane7 calls "infinite tuple" is usually called "(infinite) sequence", and we have the article Sequence about this concept. In the previous discussions, Rbrane7 never provided any reason for this change of name nor any source for the name "infinite tuple". Also, Rbrane7's request implies a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. To editor Rbrane7: Please explain how your suggestion can be implemented in respect to Wikipedia rules, namely WP:OR for the change of name from sequence to "infinite tuple" and WP:REDUNDANTFORK for the tentative of duplicating here the content of Sequence. D.Lazard (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Improperly formed Rfc – Rbrane7, please withdraw this Rfc as it is improperly formed. Ideally, you should have a brief statement in the form of a question that can be ideally answered yes-or-no, or with a small number of multiple-choice options that you provide. Second, everything you have stated above in your ramblings is WP:Original research, and it's a perversion of the Rfc process to use it as an end-run around failing to achieve any consensus in previous discussion; this is not what an Rfc is for. Please withdraw it by removing the {{Rfc}} template at the top of this section. If you can write a properly formed Rfc that complies with WP:RFC, you can start another Rfc in a new section below this one. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• (summoned by bot) Speedy close – the issue appears to be with referencing requirements rather than an actual content dispute. I would second Mathglot's request above that you withdraw the RFC, and ask that you not open a new one until you have read and understand WP:NOR and WP:V, and are able to provide references to support your position. Tollens (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy close tendentious RFC by an editor who has had multiple people try to explain Wikipedia's no-original-research and verification policies, has blown them all off, and despite a clear consensus against their position has initiated a process that could only succeed with a consensus for the position. If this continues, a WP:NOTHERE block may be necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:45, 26 November 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.

On the infinite tuple

It's clear that this is a contentious issue as seen above, so I will do my best to be as clear as possible.

A basic notion of an "infinite tuple" is noted by several authors that I could find:

• In Linear Algebra Done Right, Axler defines the vector space (of a given field ) as a "list" of n elements from (page ) and defines notes that what he refers to as a "list" many mathematicians refer to as a tuple (p.5-6). Then later defines as a field over a kind of infinite tuple (p.13).
• In Rings, Fields, and Vector Spaces, Sethuraman explicitly uses the term "Infinite tuple": (p. 66)

"Similarly, for any field , let denote the set of all infinite-tuples , where the are in ."

• And user @Rbrane7 was not being unreasonable in their mention of the Axiom of Choice, as even Terrence Tao uses the term "infinite tuple" in his book Analysis I, Remark 8.4.3, talking about the AoC. (p.200)

However, in many cases, tuples are defined by the recursive definition , with some pre-defined definition of an ordered pair, which certainly doesn't imply the existence of an infinite tuple. So it seems many authors use will use "n-tuple" to mean a, specifically, finite, ordered list.

That said, there certainly does seem to be uses of an "infinite tuple" in literature. For this reason, I will be removing the mentions in the lead that a tuple must be finite. However, I will leave further edits of how or even if to include infinite tuples in the article to other editors. Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Since the most common convention is that a tuple is finite, you must not change that. So, I reverted your edit. However, I have added the fact that "infinite tuple" is sometimes used for "infinite sequence". D.Lazard (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

A few notes:

• While some authors explicitly say that a tuple must be finite, the vast majority of what I've looked through don't make any mention at all. And other sources that don't attempt to define it seem to use the term "n-tuple" to note that a tuple in question is finite. So, unless there's been a survey among mathematicians asking their opinion that we could source, I don't know if I agree that the most common convention is that "tuple", in the general sense, must be finite.
• This makes the introduction clunky less accessible to many readers. The average reader of this article is likely going to be a student who learned the word from Python, or a curious reader who only knows about ordered pairs and is wondering about higher-ordered tuples. "Finite" is not a word commonly used outside of mathematics circles. So the explicit mention that tuples must be finite is both confusing and unnecessary for most readers.
• Your assertion about infinite tuples is, at best, confusing, and at worst, outright wrong. If one is defining a tuple as a kind of sequence (as defined in the article linked), then one should explain how a tuple is different from a sequence. Going through that article, they make no such distinction. And, in fact, at one point it says: "A sequence of a finite length n is also called an n-tuple". If you wish to use the terms as if they are different, you should explain how they are different. Then, further, Tao does not seem to use "sequence" and "tuple" interchangeably, and keeps these terms separate, even when defining infinite tuples. So, at least in the case of Tao, your assertion is not true. Farkle Griffen (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Lazard, why to push people to thinking that there is a kind of equivalence of sequence and tuple. We know the difference. You call sequence, correctly, an infinite tuple. But that is not all. Sequence basically means collection of elements of the same type related together by some relationship. So that it makes sense, for example, to speak about the limit etc. While tuple is collection of unrelated elements of potentially different types. Sequence is also tuple but tuple is not a sequence without additional constraint. Most simply, tuple is a set of properties. (Where property is a pair of type, defining set of values, and determinative set, defining its unique position.) We have infinite sets by default ...

If you tel that sequence is infinite tuple then you apparently have defined term infinite tuple. And as you know the difference between sequence and tuple, you apparently know, that infinite tuple is reasonable term and has definition.

At second, please, don’t use modality “must” within wikipedia content, if you respect others to have opinion and the right to edit wikipedia content. From what I have noticed yet, you are bound somehow to the tuple topic on wikipedia. But there is apparently no consensus on tuple as mandatory finite, and hardly can be. Because either finite or infinite tuple naturally comes from ZF axiomatics. If we add axiom of choice, which is very common, it makes sense speaking about infinite Cartesian product. I believe you allow us to speak about infinite Cartesian product. Axiom of choice (AC) itself is also, on wikipedia, formulated in terms of : Cartesian product of arbitrary set of nonempty sets is nonempty. Axiom of choice concern is infinite set, because for a finite sets AC is implied by ZF axiomatic itself. Rbrane7 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

We should not argument for oversimplification because of level of degree of reader on wikipedia. We should give the best and most complete understanding to other people who are concerned. There is apparently good intention to explain term, here tuple, most simply and intuitively. But there is no reason why to hide people from full meaning of the term, tuple, how it is treated among the high educated mathematicians. The high level definition can be quoted in separate paragraph so that fast reading of article gives brief and mostly sufficient understanding. And high level definition gives those who ask deep understanding full scale definition.

I’m afraid of the crux of disagreement. Unfortunately, in original version of article Tuple, which I found 9 months ago and which I corrected with good will, there is a mention that one of difference between tuple and set is that set can be infinite and tuple not.

This is very unhappy conclusion. It would be great success of our cooperation if we extract that conclusion from the article. Because insisting on such a conclusion digs trench between abstract modern mathematics and simplified mathematics applied in the article. If we insist on it, we have disabled term tuple for infinite case. And we have to order all mathematicians to different term for infinite tuple. But no mathematician cares for what is enforced by wikipedia. Better is to abandon the finite assertion and keep silence for simplified content. And clarify the details in higher level content of article. That keeps mathematical world and simplified mathematical world consistent. Rbrane7 (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

"Groups of numbers" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Groups of numbers has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 5 § Groups of numbers until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:55, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Who and when has invented this?

The section "Etymology" currently contains a logical explanation, but doesn't mention any history and lacks if such links. I suppose that this term is relatively recent, at least not from "classic" 19th century. So, it would be nice to add the first mention of this term, his author and, figuratively speaking, what was a name of such objects a day before the new name arrived? ~2026-54769-21 (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2026 (UTC)