Talk:Linear function

message: So, I stumbled accross this and found it to be rather nasty and hence cleaned it up. The part about definitions being disputed was just plain wrong. The article could use more work, it doesn't really take a look at the mechanics of geometric linear functions very deeply, nd kind of sounds like something from a first year algebra textbook. We should be able to do a lot better than this, we have a lot of great math people on wikipedia. --Matthew 17:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up 

message: Most of the article about linear functions is actually about affine functions.  There should be a page on affine functions or first order polynomials and this page should point to those.  Somewhere on the page about linear functions it should contain the definition of a linear function: f(ax_1+bx_2)=af(x_1)+bf(x_2). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsignoff (talk • contribs) 05:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linear function vs Affine 

message: Take the following example: Mary has $87 saved, and earns $3.25 per week. Jane has $89 saved, and earns $3 per week. I know there's a relationship between the function 87+3.25x and the function 89+3x, but how do I describe it (besides saying that both functions have a value of 113 when x=8?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.160.60 (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship between two functions 

message: I suppose the core problem in the accompanying article is simply neglect: too few editors with higher-math knowledge have cleaned up after those who don't realize that their own level of understanding, while it can be part of good and worthwhile articles, is not complete; in some cases, good material may have been discarded as obvious nonsense, by editors who are merely unacquainted with advanced math extensions and generalizations of what they've learned, when we need to cover interrelated topics at both (or more than two) levels.   Compounding that, the structure is fundamentally unsound, and at several levels. Linear function is trying to cover two distinct (tho, yes, related) topics, but says no more about why they appear in the same article than "two different but related concepts". Here's how WP has to deal with such a situation: one article on each of the two (initially, two existing sections become the core of two articles), and a Dab page (or HatNote Dab on one of the articles) to effect navigation to the desired topic/concept's article, since many users don't know how to tell them apart. Once someone can offer the substance behind "related concepts" (instead of just that generic slogan), an article like "Linear-function concepts in mathematics" may be justified; it would discuss the bonds between the two math concepts that are reflected in using (presumably generally in different contexts) the same name for both, and the essential distinctions that render a single concept inadequate. Barring controversy, i will split the accompanying article 4 ways: 
# Linear function (disambiguation) (a first line "Linear function may refer to:"; two sub-sentence entries, probably simply 2 links without elaboration,
# Linear function (analytic geometry), 
# Linear function (vector spaces), and 
# a pathetic stub for Linear-function concepts in mathematics or Linear-function concepts
That much i can do alone, tho collaboration is desirable.   That won't necessarily close the subject:  At leastLinearity (which probably needs multiple articles, a Dab, and at least one other umbrella article) must be carefully considered in light of these.--Jerzy•t 09:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the article is now clear on two distinct concepts for which the phrase "linear function" is used, having them both in the same article violates what I thought was a WP:MOS guideline, but I'm having difficulty locating the guideline.  Nevertheless, this article simply does not work adequately for the link linear function, since in the context of the link, invariably only one of the two meanings is intended, and landing here will confuse the reader by forcing them to grapple with the other meaning to disambiguate the intended meaning. —Quondum 15:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: The beginning of this article introduces the calculus version of a linear function as a polynomial of degree one or zero.  But we were told back in High School Algebra that x = 5 is not a function, although it is a polynomial that fits in this description. Are linear equations the same thing as linear functions or are people confusing these vocabulary terms?  And I thought that the first definition of a linear function contradicts the Calculus definition of a linear function since for example: if f(x) = 3x + 5 then since f(u+v) does not equal (3u+5)+(3v+5) so the function is not linear and what about transforms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:CE80:543:1976:B4B1:C2E7:D594 (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The two uses of the term "linear function" are quite distinct, and you should take care not to confuse them. And presumably you meant to write , which is a function: the constant function.  The first definition is the calculus definition, but you seem to be thinking of the second definition.  Can you suggest a way of presenting this which makes the distinction between the two uses of the term linear function clearer? —Quondum 02:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am confused?