I didn't have the energy to respond to your comments in detail earlier so I will do that now. > You gloss over huge sections of algebra What do you have in mi

I didn't have the energy to respond to your comments in detail earlier so I will do that now. > You gloss over huge sections of algebra What do you have in mind? > give no reason as to why you got rid of the 7 first, the 6 second ... third. I think it is fine as is + math operator precedence //is// discussed. > So this is what number meant during the whole middle ages. You guys were all up on my case with the "number" thing. I took a Phil. of Math class at some point and learned that the pre-Newton notions of a numbers (referred to as "arithmoi" to indicate that they are distinct from the modern notion) was principally about the integers. Rationals were treated as separate objects (ratios) and irrationals like √2 were known only through geometrical arguments. I am sure bankers of Venice knew how to calculate too, but the point remains that Newton did something very special when he started using the word "number" to mean Real numbers: a concept which subsumes ints, floats and transcendental numbers. That being said, you and @mturmon are right that the wording could be better. Will fix / clarify.