Talk:Transcendental function

message: I just removed the section entitled "Use in Calculus". Not that transcendentals aren't used in calculus, but the section discussed the use of the logarithm, as opposed to anything related to transcendentals. I would fill in the section myself, but I don't know anything about transcendentals; perhaps a mathematician might do so? Ourai тʃс 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Next time, leave it blank, don't delete it. That way, people reading the article know that a section on use in calculus is needed. LokiClock (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Use in Calculus section

message: Is it a good idea to mention field extensions? Adding an algebraic number is a finite field extension, but a transcendental one gives an infinite one. Is there a parallel for algebraic/transcendental functions? 
Paxinum (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Field extensions

message: This article is way way too technicalm, at least in the intro (and yes, I can spell and use correct grammar, I'm too annoyed)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.49.131.230 (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Do you have any idea of the appropriate level for a general encyclopedia?

message: The following was removed:
* Transcendental functions were first defined by Euler in his Introductio (1748) as functions either not definable by the "ordinary operations of algebra", or defined by such operations "repeated infinitely often". But this definition is unsatisfactory, since some functions defined with infinitely many operations remain algebraic or even rational. The theory was further developed by Gotthold Eisenstein (Eisenstein's theorem), Eduard Heine, and others.<ref Amy Dahan-Dalmédico, Jeanne Peiffer, History of Mathematics: Highways and Byways, 2010, p. 240 /ref>
The "unsatisfactory" explanation is unsatisfactory. The contributions of Eisenstein and Heine may be appended to the article with sufficient introduction and context. Rgdboer (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Eisenstein / Heine 

message: The last (as of 8.25.2022) sentence in the section is wrong-headed. DA does NOT allow you to 'split' the number from its units of measure. That is, you can no more claim log(5 meters) = log(5)+log(meters) than you can claim 5meters +5centimeters = 5(meters+centimeters). Neither is correct. And both are incorrect for the same reason.The solution mentioned in the article, to use tf's with only dimensionless quantities seems to be best. If the section needs to explain something, then it needs to explain why the units of log(5m) isn't log(meters). It also seems to me that no explanation is needed with the process of taking sine(4 degrees) to be a dimensionless number, rather than claiming its units are Sum(radians^n) where n = 1...infinity (taylor series expansion). 4meters*sin(30°)=2 meters, after all. BTW, when I do DA, I always place units of measure in parentheses to keep them isolated from the numbers and magnitudes. The mathematical operations performed on the magnitudes aren't suitable for operations on units of measure.98.21.245.38 (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensional Analysis