Talk:Asymptote

message: ive said it once ill say it again, these math articles should include ways to find whatever they are talking about. for instnace, this ine should show HOW to find a horizontal asymptote or a vertical. honestly, who is coming here to find a definition that uses complex words and concepts noone but mathematicians understand? keep it simple and show HOW.--Jaysscholar 02:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the last two comments.  I won't go so far as to substitute Dearman's definition for the one in the article (although I like it), but is there any objection to at least deleting the words "arbitrarily closely" from the definition in the article?  It not only makes it hard to understand, it's also incorrect.  (To me, at least -- but I'm just a layperson.  Maybe I'm missing something?)  As far as I can tell, there's nothing "arbitrary" about the distance of the curve from the asymptote at any given location.  The point's location is given by the function.  -- M.C.
'arbitrary' has a slightly different/more precise meaning in mathematics. It doesn't mean 'random', but rather that the statement is true for any value you can choose, i.e, a function is, for some point, as close to the asymptote as you like. For all x not equal to 0, the function has a value x away from the asymptote.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.224.157 (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: how to

message: The definition of an asymptote is wrong... e.g. y=sin (e^x) has asymptote y=0, bu the curve does intersect 0 at times..
The definition was wrong; I've corrected it.  Your example, though isn't right: it's not asymptotic to y=0.  Perhaps you meant
something like y = sin(e^x)/e^x which is nicely asymptotic to y=0 and hits it infinitely many times. It's also asymptotic to y=1! A great
example! Doctormatt 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong definition 

message: I just made a bunch of changes to the page.  I expanded (i.e., made it longer) the layman's definition to make it both (I hope) more accurate and
clearer.  I really want to emphasize the point that the curve can cross the asymptote, so phrases like "never quite reaches"
are not correct.  
I didn't use the phrase "arbitrarily closely" since it does seem to cause problems.
I think it important to make it clear whether one is talking about asymptotes of graphs of functions, or of more general curves.
To this end, I split a lot of the page into a "graphs of functions" section.   
Let me know what you think.
Doctormatt 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have a valid issue but from what I can find, the problem isn't with the article. Wikipedia depends on existing published works to establish credibility, so unless there is published material to support the changes you have in mind they shouldn't be made to the article. I've tried to find material that goes beyond the linear asymptote definition and have tried to include what is out there in the article, but there seems to be very little to find and what there is seems to somewhat controversial. It's not up to Wikipedia to fill in gaps in the mathematical literature, so if there is a corresponding gap in an article there is little to be done.--RDBury (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * The typical area in which any kind of behavior is needed is in complex analysis for the study of asymptotic values in the context of Picard theorem and related topics. A book, that have a lot about that is Markushevish, Theory of the functions of complex variable. Computer scientics also need other definition besides the usual limit of the diference and definitely need not only straight lines (to measure complexity of algorithms). franklin  09:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be a language issue.  Typically in English, "asymptote" refers to what might more properly be termed a linear asymptote.  (It is instructive to compare also with the Encyclopedia of Mathematics entry here.)  One can indeed talk about functions being asymptotic, but they are not usually called asymptotes (at least in the English-speaking world), as that word already seems to have other connotations.  There is indeed an area of asymptotic analysis which studies functions that are asymptotic with each other, but again the word asymptote itself is generally not used here.  Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, none of the three volumes of the Markushevish treatise seems to mention asymptotes (at least not in the index).  Should this be removed from the list of references in the article? Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 July 2006 changes

message: Is it correct that x=a is an asymptote of f(x) if "limit of f(x) as x->-a = +or-infinity". It is written in the article.
:It doesn't say that.  If says x=a is an asymptote if the limit of f(x) as x->a from the left = + or - infinity, or the limit of f(x) as x->a from the right is + or - infinity.  "-a" never comes into it.  I just noticed though that the one-sided limits are indicated using superscripts, so I changed it. Doctormatt 17:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vertical Asymptote 

message: its a pretty odd description, combining the technical with the totally un-technical. Surely there would be a better way to explain that a function can become nearer to and further from a function locally so long as overall it is approaching the asymptote?
:Can you be more specific about where in the article you wish to see improvements? Thanks. (p.s. don't forget to sign you comments with four tildes) Doctormatt 02:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local Wobbling? 

message: Could someone please reformat the page it is in dire need of this, the images are oversized and the text is splattered accross the screen in random places. I don't know how to otherwise i would have done it myself, thanks.
:It's better now IMO.--Svetovid 12:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could still use a little work, I don't know how to  either but in the last section their is  a picture covering the links.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.206.37 (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs re-formatting 

message: The section on Slant Asymptote is rather confusing.  My math teachers are rather confused looking at it .  Can someone who knows a little more about the slant asymptotes both check the math and make it a little easier to understand.  --Omnipotence407 (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slant Asymptote 

message: I personally cannot make head or tail of said section. I'm currently doing alegebra homework, and what my book has looks nothing like what I'm seeing there. I'm not saying "delete" it, I was just wondering if someone could make it a little simpler to understand. Thanks! Paladin Hammer (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Horizontal Asymptote is rathe confusing. 

message: Since people are suggesting we strive for ridiculous amounts of generality and definitions so advanced that the people suggesting them don't know what they mean, I figured I'd throw a little more wood on the fire. Why not introduce non-archimedean definitions of asymptote while we're at it? We could mention the several geometries, such as nonstandard analysis, where it's perfectly reasonable to say that a curve is asymptotic to a line if, at infinite distance from the origin, the deviation of the one from the other is infinitesimal. Or we could point out projective geometry, coordinatized by the projective reals, where a line is asymptotic to a curve precisely when it's tangent to that curve at infinity. That viewpoint even gives a nice visual justification for allowing them to intersect each other a lot. What do you think? Black Carrot (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuz Why Not 

message: The "formal definition" in this article is just my Original Research, taken from the discussion above. I did't expect it to be inserted in the article. I think, it should be removed and replaced by the proper one, referenced in the scientific bibliography. Olaf (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to the Pages Needing Attention list for good measure. The problem is that the scientific literature doesn't seem to have a lot of coverage on this and what is there is usually incomplete or inconsistent. Every college freshman calculus text defines horizontal and vertical asymptotes of functions and most cover asymptotes of hyperbolas, but none give a really satisfactory general definition because that would be outside the scope of a freshman calculus class. I've gone to the usual math web resources and have found little useful. MathWorld just has a picture and a vague indication of the concept rather than a definition, Planet Math is better but only defines linear asymptotes, MacTutor also only defines linear asymptote and their definition is different from the one in Planet Math, and Springer Enc. of Math doesn't go much farther than the freshman calculus definition. I added the Fowler reference because it had the most general definition I could find on the web, but it's not recent and the definition isn't symmetric. (For example y=sin(x2) is an asymptote of y=0 under this definition but the reverse is not true.)--RDBury (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if nobody in the scientific world defines nonlinear asymptotes, the Wikipedia article should mention only the linear ones as well, shouldn't it? Otherwise, how could you prove, the described object is still called an asymptote, if nobody calls it in this way? Or, if it is somehow defined in Fowler, use his definition, however it must be very odd... y=sin(x2) as an asymptote of y=0 doesn't make sense to me. Could you cite that definition? Olaf (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree we should look for a definition we can cite, so I removed your definition in the meantime. There is a link in the article to a PDF of Fowler's book, where you can find his definition on p. 89. But it is written in archaic language. The reason it is not symmetric is that it defines what it means for the graph of a function y = f(x) to be asymptotic to an implicity defined curve g(x,y) = 0, but does not define what it would mean for two implicitly defined curves to be asymptotic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Fowler's definition is quite nice, and it doesn't imply, that y=\sin(x^2) is an asymptote of y=0: if a point P on the curve y=0 tends to infinity, distance from y=\sin(x^2) tends to infinity as well... I believe, if he had written "the curve f(x,y)=0" instead of "the curve y=f(x)" the definition would be equivalent to mine. Best, Olaf (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm starting to come around to Olaf's point of view with regard to non-linear asymptotes. Linear asymptotes are most often used in the literature I've seen and using projective geometry they can be seen as a generalization of tangents. Definitions for non-linear asymptotes may be found, but none of them seem to have become common usage in a geometric context. Non-linear asymptotic behavior of functions should be left in the Asymptotic analysis article.--RDBury (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal definition - just an OR 

message: New page? Asymptote as a verb.
This is widely used as a verb- two examples follow: 
http://adrianmonck.com/2007/09/asymptoting-towards-zero/
and
http://www.springerlink.com/content/07l2250t7p6l5411/
Asymptote was first used as a verb by Rich Tighe, who was overheard to say, "Who has been asymptoting the pie?"
Electricmic (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Asymptoting

message: As far as I can tell, the current first sentence of the article is meaningless:
:"In geometry, an asymptote of a curve is another curve who's behavior is similar in some sense when traveled, simultaneously, in a given way."
If I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say, I doubt someone who doesn't know what an asymptote is will do better. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: I started searching and there are old versions as far as two years ago in which asymptote was defined as a curve. It takes only a hard work that lasted for a night organizing and cleaning the mess let accumulated for a long time to awake the pride of those that were supposed to do something but didn't do it. Shame on you. Now, the useless and bad version I did is changed to use the definition of asymptote as a line and it was so easy to do. Just a tweak!  franklin  03:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right in that there is a lot of blame to go around here. The article was allowed to grow very long and detailed with no hint of a reference to show that anything in it wasn't just made up. If you look at some of the other threads in this page you can see that there have been complaints about it for a while now. I, for one, was attempting to fix some of the issues and to do research to back up the notion of non-linear asymptotes with with reliable sources. In fact I was the one who added the Fowler reference you list below in the first place and I've seen the Frost book as well. The problem with the definitions given there is that they do not match each other or any other definition I could find, and the vast majority of the sources I found, including the most prominent math websites which I listed above in another thread, mention only linear asymptotes. This may be an issue with my skills at doing research or it may be a criticism the current state of the literature. There is no value in a definition unless there is a common consensus among the group who use the term as to what it means. In this case, the Fowler and Frost books give two opinions as to what the meaning should be, but the term has been use for hundreds of years by a great many people and the opinions of two authors do not constitute a consensus. I was hoping that someone with better research skills than I would be able to find such a consensus in the literature, and the article has been tagged with refimprove for a long time now with little change until the last few days. Perhaps you were also right in that some kind of radical shake up was needed to get this article out of the state of stagnation it was in. I do ask however that radical shake ups be proposed and discussed beforehand. Any edit made to Wikipedia is subject to consensus since any other editor can easily undo the change. The larger and more radical the change, the more effort should be put into building a consensus for that change. In the end, the quality of the article is the only issue that matters, and consensus building, though often slow and painful, usually results in changes that better improve the quality of an article than when this process is skipped.--RDBury (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Every line is a curve. On the other hand, it is possible for one non-linear curve to be asymptotic to another non-linear curve. So I really don't see what point you are arguing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Really? Never thought about that. How enlightening. The point is, that defining asymptotes as general curves was there there and I kept it but is largely unwanted. As you can see form the posts above. In any case the article is changing now that I did so many "step in the wrong direction" and after being for so long in a poor condition. My point was to notice how mathematicians are moved more for the sake of pride and despise for the others than for the true sake of doing something good.  franklin  14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If mathematicians are full of spite for others, I don't think rubbing it in their faces is likely to be a useful technique in working with them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * It is a teaser. Now they are working instead of crying and complaining. Complaining about a work that took me a whole night, that cleaned all the mess was there, and that added consistent use of terminology and clarified many delicate topics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklin.vp (talk • contribs) 15:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The true value of a mathematician 

message: I have removed the following paragraph:
Quite apart from the questionable writing here, the reference in question appears to be about a more general concept than the one treated here.  See multiple posts above in which I point out that the English-language usage is somewhat different from (for instance) the French.  At least one editor here seems to think that asymptote means the same thing as asymptotic analysis, and has repeatedly tried to insert such content into the article.  Anyway, for a topic as well-covered as asymptotes, one can only wonder why English-language sources are not being used, despite my remarks above. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've now been reverted twice by User:Franklin.vp—despite being repeatedly told to improve the article rather than discussing complaining about it.  Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Don't cry. No one is hitting you. Notice that I haven't touched any of your changes that are for good (and not because I haven't seen them). OK, I will find you a book in English saying that asymptotes give quantitative info.  franklin  15:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) It is a bit rude to say that someone is crying.  (2) It is ironic that you have appointed yourself the arbiter of what is "good" and what isn't.  See the above threads on this very page. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When you invite others to fix the mess here, it is probably best not to continually undermine their efforts at improvement. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

text:  Have I undermined? every one of your changes that comply with the good writing and the better understanding of the subject I have preserved. Sorry for using the word "cry" my knowledge of English is limited and I can't distinguish between subtle differences in meaning. Maybe "lament" would be better? Again, my apologies if that was rude. I have not appointed myself as arbiter, Wikipedia have appointed us all as arbiters. When I said I was just to emphasize that I will take care of my part of that appointment.  franklin  15:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  French language source "asymptotique" versus "asymptote" 

message: I have moved the following thread from my talk page.  Please discuss changes related to the article here, not there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But the etymology is still there.  Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Removed.  See explanations on talk. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

text: * Saw it already and there is an answer to that also. Meanwhile the topic is resolved is better if the information stays in the page as it is in the very least referenced.  franklin  14:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *You have said many times that you would prefer it if editors would "fix" the article rather than discuss it on the talk page.  That is what I am trying to do.  Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Definitely, do it. But I also will look for the relevant information to be preserved.  franklin  14:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * OK now you are getting unreasonable. The paragraph comes from an idea expressed in a book. Please don't remove information change it if you don't like the wording.  franklin  14:46, 13 December 2009
(UTC)
* You see? I am happy now. It would be good to also add further down in the article more detain on how that quantitative info is used and is different from the other several notions of limiting behaviors.  franklin  15:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

text: * solved. good. better wording needed (since looks like an isolated phrase, a forgotten thing said at the end of a conversation) but that can be fixed.  franklin  15:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pasted from my user talk 

message: It has been repeatedly insisted by a certain highly opinionated editor that asymptotes are not qualitative, but rather quantitative.  This clashes with my own feeling, given that when I used to teach freshman calculus, asymptotes were always introduced in the "qualitative analysis of functions" part of the lecture.  My worry here is that the target audience are mostly going to be thinking of asymptotes as part of the qualitative analysis of functions.  If that is so, then we should say qualitative rather than quantitative.  Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as I believe I have pointed out, the section was sourced to a French-language source which nowhere uses the term "asymptote".  Also, one might take the opposite point of view to that expressed in the text, namely that whereas the limit being infinite expresses quantitative information about the blowup of the function, asymptotes describe qualitative differences in this blow up.  Anyway, the content whose restoration you are now pushing was poorly expressed, confusing, and entirely unnecessary.  (I won't use the word "pride" that you are so fond of rudely accusing others of.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

text: * Just a little point. a limit that is infinity is never a quantitative info. That precisely distinguishes it from rate of growth. Again, is precisely for this kind of confusion that is necessary such an explanation. I can not emphasize enough how important the purpose of a concept is way more important than any particular definition of it. That's what happened for instance with the notions of point and line. the ancients tended to waste a lot of effort trying to explain the zero dimensionality of the point and the one dimensionality of the line, while it was never important for the work they were doing afterwards of them. (I am not saying that the concept of dimension was not developed afterwards) In a similar fashion in this talk-page ( in classes also, and books ) a lot of effort is expended in arguing if to put curves or lines as asymptotes, or to put this or that, variation in the definition. If the purpose is understood then all of this are just subtle differences.  franklin  16:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

text: * A mnemonic trick to understand the qualitative nature of a limit that is infinite. If I tell you: I have this function that tends to infinity and this other that also does. Can I compare them in any way? More info will be needed. On the other hand, if I tell you one is as fast as x^2 and the other as fast as x then the picture change (this is the change from the notion of limit to the one of rate of growth). If I tell you one is as fast as 3x^2+1 and the other as 600000000x-10 then the picture changes slightly more (thats the difference between rate of growth and asymptote or asymptotic expansion). Again purpose is the key so purpose should be shown to students (and sometime not only to students)  franklin  16:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * more mnemonic here  franklin  17:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Not sure how you managed to get the misconception that I am confused about something.  Just because I disagree with you doesn't automatically imply that I am somehow deficient, prideful, crying, etc.  Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

text: * Definitely not, I am using sources to support my claim. Follow the link above. I said confused because you first called asymptote qualitative, then limits that are infinite qualitative, then asymptotes qualitative and quantitative (this one correct but rather vacuous statement). If you have clear this notions please use them to improve the article. Right know the phrase used is saying nothing, it is not playing the role that was supposed to play when added at the very beginning. But please don't call infinite quantitative, it is painful. It is like when kids try to subtract two infinites. (there it is, another mnemonic trick. you can't subtract infinites without using more info about the functions, but you surely can if you use asymptotic information about them)  franklin  17:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I have said repeatedly, analysis of a function's asymptotes is one of the main parts of the qualitative analysis of a function (e.g., in graph sketching).  This isn't controversial stuff: look in any textbook.  But you have repeatedly insulted me here.  Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  A third opinion, preferably someone with a native command of the vagaries of English, who has (hopefully) taught a course on this very subject, would be helpful. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

text: * Please, what book? Notice that in order to sketch a graph you need also quantitative info in addition to the qualitative one. That's precisely the reason why you compute asymptotes and not only the limit at infinity. That you use the word "vagaries" is good, it show that you are getting to the limit to which you can support your point. The thing is that you are trying to come with and explanation using only the image you have in your mind about qualitative vs quantitative. The link I gave you above is taken from a book dedicated to that, made for statistics and related areas or research. In any case, qualitative, quantitative, is just a word. It doesn't matter if you don't understand, if you don't want to understand or if you are the top most authority on the subject. What is important is to answer the questions enumerated above (which is not done in the article), using or not the words quantitative or qualitative. About offending you, if telling you that you are not understanding something, giving you references and explanations that show that you are is offending, yes I am offending and I will keep doing it. Truth is more important than any one's pride. About looking in "any book". Almost no textbook qualifies asymptotes as being one or the other. I gave you one that does (the one in French). Agree that they are talking about asymptotics, but the article (as it is now), in the definition of asymptote as general curves allows the possibility of identifying the two concepts. Therefore the reference in French is applicable.  franklin  19:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Re "which book".  Try Apostol, or Stewart, or Hughes-Hallet.  Any one of the standard books from which calculus is currently taught at a freshman level in any major US university will do. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Re "allows the possibility of identifying the two subjects".  This would be WP:OR.  We should say what sources do say, not what we think they could or ought to say.  Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

text: * The thing is that you simply don't know what is the difference between qualitative information and quantitative information. Or don't want to, since I already gave you links to entire book on the subject. No problem, if you enjoy staying in your ignorance is your decision. In any case, it is not my interest to call asymptotes either way, since, as I said, that is not what is important (apart from calling them and limits that are infinite qualitative which is wrong). What I do think is important is to address explicitly the question enumerated above. Oh! one last thing. That asymptotes are used for sketching graphs and that sketch are rough approximations doesn't say that they use only qualitative info. OK, enough throwing in your face the things you don't know. I like the section with the projective stuff. That can lead to put, what someone has been pushing to put and that is useful, about computing asymptotes for curves given implicitly. franklin  19:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are asymptotes quantitative or qualitative? 

message: Stewart's Calculus gives a table of the "most important steps" for sketching the graph of a function.  Finding the asymptotes is one of them.  Is there a serious contention that this is not one of the most important steps? Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Calculus, 4th ed., p. 264.  I don't suggest actually using this as a reference for the text because the precise contents are in constant flux, so it is difficult to verify precisely.  I also don't think it is a particularly controversial point whether it is indeed "one of the most important" aspects: the fact that Apostol does it in all of the examples is fairly convincing to me.  Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the most important steps 

message: It looks like there has been a lot of progress here. I still think there there is a bit too much emphasis on asymptotes of functions (as opposed to curves in general) which could be covered just as well in the Asymptotic analysis article, but that may just be me and the highest priority was to get references for everything.--RDBury (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Was reading the guide lines but the article will be needed to let rest to satisfy the stability criterion, 1e. after checking the rest of the criteria and before nominating.  franklin  20:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * I would not get your hopes up as I doubt it's ever going to make an FAC: even when it's done it's going to be mostly mathematical formulae and technical discussion, of little interest to general readers. The high density of maths would make it difficult to provide reference and fill it with the sort of sparkling prose that seems to be expected. Look at WP:FFA#Mathematics; none of them look anything like this one.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * I see. Probably very true. Pity. Also, compared to the eigenvalue one, this is a piece of garbage right now. After all, asymptote is just an old not-very-useful concept that evolved into others of greater significance.  franklin  21:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be more than happy if we can get it to B or B+ class. Right now I'd say it's gone from barely Start to about C, but math doesn't do C's so we can't change the rating yet. I've been reading dozens of different texts online to get an idea of the different definitions being used, and it seems like everyone has their own variation. So it's going to take a while to get it all to make sense.--RDBury (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Is that an official classification going on in Wikipedia? Do you have a link to the requirements? I would like to read about to see what can be done if it can be done. About the concept it self, it is not such a big problem that there are many variations. The article can simply talk about them. Only two things will be needed: 1) try to talk about all main variations so that no one feels excluded and tempted to start changing drastically the article. 2) try to put them with the appropriate hierarchical emphasis according to popularity as it is required by Wikipedia. I was making so much emphasis in showing the purpose of the concept and the relations between the different presentations because of this. When the purpose is stated all variation in the concept become just details and people using one variation will understand (and respect) the variations of the others. I remember when in high school that they never agreed if to put zero as a natural number or not. Fortunately there was no doubt about having induction and that shows where the main purpose was.  franklin  12:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: I added an example and some additional explanatory material to explain the concept to non-mathematicians. The example does require some familiarity with the Cartesian coordinate system, setting the level at pre-calculus or high school. WP:MOSMATH recommends an informal introduction of this type and there was none. The text was taken, at least in outline, from the "Asymptote" article in the Penny Cyclopaedia, a popular 19th century encyclopedia, but it seemed as good an introduction as any with a bit of updating and it's freely available on Google. I translated the water example given there to one using a curve defined in Cartesian coordinates because, as given, the original would be hard for modern readers to follow and it would require additional diagrams.--RDBury (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple example 

message: Intuitively, it would seem to me that asymptotes and lines of best fit are related concepts, but with lines of best fit typically describing a line that is minimal mean distance from a set of points in a field, while an asymptote is a line of infinitesimally small distance from another line as both lines tend to infinity; essentially, both concepts describe the line that is minimally distant to another object at some place.
Are there cases in which the line of best fit could be described as "asymptotic" or vice versa, or where the concepts formally overlap? Or is there something else key that I'm not grasping? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to "[[line of best fit]]"? 

message: Substituted at 01:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Images are of highly variable legibility.  Some are presented well in clearly-distinguishable, highly-contrasting colours. 
Others are very difficult to read, being presented in various scarcely distinguishable shades of grey upon grey (as promoted by modern graphics designers, apparently).  
—DIV (120.17.226.223 (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image quality