Talk:Gibbs–Duhem equation

message: the proof here is nice to help understanding but its not a real proof.
Can someone who applications in a binary system with x1 and x2 being the two compositions?
----
Performed a reasonably extensive rewrite of this page, including trying to make variables of consistant case and tracking whether they are intensive or extensive.  Added references to Moran and Shapiro and Poling et al.  Changed the term "Proof" to what I think is the more appropriate "Derivation" and added a more appropriate form of it.  Tried to expand the "Applications" section to include the form of Gibbs-Duhem used in activity coefficient derivation (Margules, van Laar, NTRL, UNIQUAC).  Also included basic explanation and link to Gibbs' phase rule, which seemed appropriate.
Thermodude 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, I always thought that the expression for the (differential of) internal energy came from the first law of thermo, not the defintion of gibbs free energy. I can see what you are saying though. It doesn't really matter, because the equations are all consistent. ChrisChiasson 16:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

message: It shows that in thermodynamics intensive properties are not independent but related, making it a mathematical statement of the state postulate.
The link entitled "state postulate" does not explain what the state postulate is, only thermodynamic variables and state functions. 84.227.253.226 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not defined in link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gibbs–Duhem equation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707224025/http://www.chem.arizona.edu/~salzmanr/480a/480ants/opensys/opensys.html to http://www.chem.arizona.edu/~salzmanr/480a/480ants/opensys/opensys.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gibbs–Duhem equation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070322035057/http://www.chem.neu.edu/Courses/1382Budil/PartialMolarQuantities.htm to http://www.chem.neu.edu/Courses/1382Budil/PartialMolarQuantities.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I notice that user:Deacon Vorbis has recently made reversions to newly added content, without sufficiently explaining them here on this talk page. His edits will be reverted.--82.137.13.123 (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The notation you're using is unintelligible, as others have pointed out at WP:RD/MA.  The added explanation also doesn't make any sense.  I'm not especially knowledgeable in chemistry, but you could ask for further assistance at WT:CHEM.  (And even though I'm not a chem expert, the math notation is still totally wonky).  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've just taken a look at WP:RD/MA and seen several comments beside user:JBL first reply which has been very useful. The last reply by Slawomir Bialy is very illustrative about the nature of derivative involved, indeed it's about a derivative taken with respect to x2 at constant ratio of the other mole fractions x1/x3. Is this somewhat unusual constant variable as ratio of two simple variables instead of simple variable what confuses you?--82.137.11.4 (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Perhaps these nonstandard aspects should be included on the page partial derivative where it be example of use of partial derivatives in the context of math-based sciences.--82.137.15.34 (talk) 11:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Deacon Vorbis, you still haven't give a concrete example of a particular piece of formula from those you have reverted it may seem nonsensical/wonky to you. If you remain only at the level of vague allegations you'd better stay out of nonsensical objections like those you have done until now. I still wait for you to point to a concrete example of part of formula to be improved as notation.--82.137.11.191 (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Deacon Vorbis, you could have enumerate a list of aspects for clarification like those mentioned by user:JBL! If you have an additional aspect not covered by JBL, now it's time to hear it from you. If not, you should refrain from making annoying, unhelpful reversions based on vague allegations.--82.137.9.223 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I'm still waiting that you say something constructive as aspect that needs improvement, other than those mentioned before by another editor, instead of doubtful edits here about a supposed altering of older comments.--82.137.9.233 (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple reversions, insufficiently explained, by user Deacon Vorbis