Talk:Division by two

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus to delete. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Division by two. -- BD2412 ^talk July 9, 2005 03:30 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt is mentioned in the lead and nowhere else. Other than the signle provided reference, I can't find anything to verify the truth of this claim. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 20:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well.

I would like to respectfully suggest that the article Division by Two include a brief mention of a recently published paper in IEEE Access, which presents a new mathematical method for performing division by two in natural numbers. According to my study, this method is not only novel but also possesses the unique capability of being modeled through cellular automata and graph-based representations [1, 2].

As a researcher, I would like to propose that a short, neutrally phrased reference to this method — supported by an appropriate citation — could be helpful for readers and would improve accessibility to academic resources in this area. If you find it appropriate, please feel free to add this reference yourselves, or kindly allow me to add it personally in accordance with Wikipedia’s neutrality and citation guidelines.

The purpose of this suggestion is simply to make the article more comprehensive and to facilitate easier access to peer-reviewed academic sources related to this topic.

[1] M. Z. A. Zarei, A. Saeid, A. Babak, and Bagher, "Sequence pairs related to produced graphs from a method for dividing a natural number by two," Journal of Algorithms and Computation, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 131-140, 2023.

[2] M. Z. Azim, B. Anari, S. Alikhani, and B. Zarei, "Division of a Natural Number by Two: A Cellular Automata-Based Approach," IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 116508-116518, 2025, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3569454. Amiryehfatemeh (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Only an AI would think that such a problem would even need a new solution. GPTZero is highly confident that your request here, also, is AI-generated slop. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This seems a bit sharp. In some countries, this kind of strictly formal writing is taught to everyone in school, and correspondence with strangers is expected to follow such a pattern to show politeness. English is also probably not their native language. @Amiryehfatemeh, the typical tone in Wikipedia talk-page conversations is a bit less formal and more conversational. –jacobolus (t) 00:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dear Prof David

Thank you for attention,

You are a knowledgeable and learned individual, and this message does not appear to have been written under ordinary circumstances. Because, as you yourself know better than many other scientists, does science not evolve precisely through such small, seemingly incredulous things? From cellular automata and chaos theory and... it is undeniable. Yet I am surprised at a scientist of your stature thinking that AI would reason like this?? While I have been working on this theory for 27 years. Testing it costs nothing; tell your Ph.D. and post-doctoral students to present a new method for division by two that can be modeled with automata and graphs. If they can?? Surely they cannot. This is the first mathematical operation modeled with automata and graphs; indeed, after modeling it, we even produced a framework capable of generating random numbers. Moreover, in a highly confidential experiment, the results produced for dividing billions of digits by two were far faster than previous methods; even faster than right shift on computers. I have written the code and its mathematical proof; if you are willing, I could even become your post-doctoral student and we could register it under both our names. Everything is ready for the method; particularly regarding its speed; to be published in a renowned interdisciplinary journal. Although the modeling aspects have already been published, I have not yet submitted the part concerning the increase in speed and its proof. Honestly, I do not wish to register it under my own name on Wikipedia; I simply wanted to elevate the scope of research in the domain of division by two. You yourself know that registering under individual names is not permitted. I kindly request that you read this paper once again and grant permission for editing, because it would be a pity for such a method not to be placed alongside the others. Even if you study it yourself, you will see that this method rests on a far more solid and robust mathematical foundation than other approaches. I await your response, respected professor. Yours sincerely, Mohammad Zeinali Azim. ~2026-92569-5 (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand from the paper what the difference is between this an previous methods. From what I can tell, given some base-ten number you first divide each digit by two, in parallel, then you add the resulting terms together to obtain an answer. If you want to divide by two more than once, you repeat the procedure. Isn't this more or less the same thing people were doing with a counting board a few millennia ago? –jacobolus (t) 00:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is also standard that finite state transducers can perform division by a fixed divisor in any base; see e.g. doi:10.1007/978-1-84800-121-3_8 (a 2008 undergraduate textbook). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This manner of responding reflects a disregard for the status of a researcher. If you had studied the paper and the references, you would never have spoken this way. Because unlike previous methods for division by two, this method has a very strong mathematical foundation, in addition to all of its other features...

Just as you are an expert in your own scientific field, the originator of this method has also labored for 27 years to present this fundamental theory. A theory that possesses remarkable characteristics, from modeling with graphs and automata, to the point that, according to the originator of this method's research, it operates faster than all existing methods—even faster than right shift.

Moreover, the originator of this method's theory applies to millions and billions of digits, with applications in cryptography, quantum computing, and more. Whereas shift and other previous methods merely perform division by two and their operations are serial, this method is vectorized and possesses additional capabilities.

It would be better never to pass judgment on the work of researchers without thorough and extensive study of the subject at hand... ~2026-92569-5 (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

"reflects a disregard for the status of a researcher" – Can you elaborate? Which status are you thinking of?

If this method is so fundamental and remarkable, then surely it will be widely cited within a few years, including by secondary sources such as textbooks and survey papers. At that point, it may be worthwhile mentioning here. See Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. –jacobolus (t) 19:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

No, you must provide a reference, which you can never do, because 27 years of work has been done on this theory and there is no reference!!!!!!!!!!!1??????? And this is undeniable??? So, this is a parallel division by two method, as you yourself stated? A parallel method that others are not?? And this is precisely where vectorization comes into play, where other methods fall short—meaning they cannot perform the division by two operation in a vectorized manner. As a result, you yourself have sensed that this method is very different from all previous methods??? You cannot deny it. Although previous methods also divide by two and produce correct results, they are truly obscure methods. I mean, what does it even mean to right shift to divide by two?? You need to have computer science knowledge to understand this, and secondly, it requires a strong mathematical proof. Moreover, they lack modeling capabilities; they merely and only divide by two, and when faced with billions of digits, they fall short????? And.... ~2026-92569-5 (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply