Talk:Integral/Archive 1

message: The symbols {,} and epsilon are used without definition or even reference to set theory.  Some people may have had a lousy education and look towards this article for guidance.  It would be swell if someone added that.  Mbac 03:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of symbols from set theory? 

message: Diberri removed the following sentence from the very beginning of the text:
:It is recommended that the reader be familiar with algebra, derivatives, functions, and limits
I think this deserves more discussion. When I first saw this text I was also like "other pages of wikipedia don't have this kind of introduction!" but after some consideration I changed my opinion to be more like "perhaps its the other pages that should be changed". What do other people think about this?
: IMO, it sounds odd for an encyclopedia to address the reader, which is why I moved these prerequisites to the related topics section. Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics is apparently in favor of these messages, though, which is why I didn't continue removing them from other math-related topics. --Diberri | Talk 23:28, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
:: I agree that It is recommended that the reader be familiar ... sounded strange, and I agree with its removal. For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that we need to take Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics all that seriously; my experience with proposal pages of various kinds in Wikipedia is that they attract the attention of too small a fraction of the editors to have a serious claim to authority. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reader should know 

message: The introduction mentions mass. How is it relevant? Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 10:25, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
:It's the definite integral of density. Revolver 19:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mass]]? 

message: This is not a "nice function", according to the article. I think it is correct to say that it is not an elementary function - if somebody knows this, can they fix the article? Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 10:30, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
:See Error function. Charles Matthews 16:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integral of exp(-x<sup>2</sup>) 

message: See talk:antiderivative. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with [[antiderivative]]? 

message: Here is my site with integral example problems. Someone please put this link in the external links section if you think it's helpful and relevant. Tbsmith
http://www.exampleproblems.com/wiki/index.php/Calculus
cool site ,Yet it's data could be merged with wikibooks or wikitext ,rather than here.---Procrastinator talk2me 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for new external link 

message: the article says "However, modern theories of integration are built from different foundations, and the traditional symbols have become no more than notation."
this is clearly false!
when writing  f(x)dx, one means the differntial 1-form f(x) * dx, and you integrate the differntial form, not the function itself!
:I'm not sure that the notation has to be taken to indicate a differential form.  The dx can mean a couple of different things.  Anyway, I don't like the sentence.  What does it mean to be "no more than notation"?  Isn't everything in mathematics "no more than notation", at least from a formalist perspective?  I changed it to something more wishy-washy, but perhaps it should just be removed. -lethe talk [ +] 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  notation? 

message: My revert is motivated by the fact that it is already clear enough from the current wording that integral may refer to antiderivative, and not just in India, but in many places. Insisting so much that in India it is official while in other places may not be is just distracting, not very relevant, and innappropriate so early in the text (the intro can be used for better things). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Current wording is clear enough. It says that "integral" may refer to "antiderivative". At that point the user should visit antiderivative and read on that concept. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integral vs antiderivative 

message: I'd encourage folks to move wording and nuance changes to this subsection.
--
Near the bottom of the third paragraph of the article, describing the Riemann definition:
"A method for calculating this area using the concept of limit by dividing the area into successively thinner rectangular strips and taking the sum of their areas"
I decided to go ahead and change "successively thinner rectangular strips" to "arbitrarily thin rectangular strips" because I believe it to be more conceptually accurate in that there will be error in the integration if the strips have any thickness at all - however, perhaps it is less readable.
Also conceptually accurate would be "infinitely thin rectangular strips".  
What wording is best?  Change to infinitely thin if it's better.  
Of course wording is signifigant in a major or even minor article.
Fulvius 09:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely hate "infinitely thin." I have no idea what it means for something to be "infinitely thin." I'm not entirely sure that makes sense. I prefer "arbitrarily thin," as that is unambiguous. –King Bee (T • C) 13:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: This is a really nice article, and would make a terrific GA. However, I think it doesn't quite pass all of the criteria yet. For this reason, I am putting it "On hold" for 7 days.
:GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
Since this is my first time reviewing an article, please let me explain myself below:
* Although I noticed that "we" was used at one point in the article, I think it fits the exception for mathematical articles outlined at WP:MOS. Because of this, I passed criterion 1c.
* This article is in need of inline citations and more complete references throughout, but especially in the "Symbolic integration" section and when citing historical information. This is, by far, the largest issue in my opinion preventing this from being a GA. Because 2a and 2b do not pass, I cannot make any judgment on 2c and 2d.
* While there is a correctly tagged image, I would just like to point out that the image used has been superseded by a vector-based version. As a result, I marked 6a as neutral instead of passing it outright. On a sidenote, I think that the addition of another image or two (possibly one from Riemann integral or Rectangle method) would really add a lot to an already nice article. 
I have placed the article “On hold” for the changes to be implemented, and I hope this helps. Hotstreets 00:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am failing the GA nomination since the concerns mentioned by Hotstreets have not been addressed in the last 10 days.  Though much of the content of the article could be considered general knowledge, the referencing is simply not up to the GA standard.  No other complaints though and I am listing it as an unreferenced GA.  Eluchil404 17:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article (GA) review 

message: I was under the impression that the set of functions that are Riemann integrable and the set of functions that are Lebesgue integrable are not comparable; i.e., there are functions that are Riemann but not Lebesgue, and vice versa. So, does the Lebesgue integral really integrate a "wider class" of functions? What does this mean? Also, I feel that an unfair portion of the article is dedicated to the Riemann integral, while I feel that the Lebesgue integral is at least as important. Should we change the focus a bit, or have a different section explaining Lebesgue integration? --King Bee 22:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lebesgue integrates a wider class of functions?