Talk:Calculus/Archive 3

message: I came here in order to get a basic understanding of what calculus is and I have to say that after reading this article and trying to make sense of it, I don't know better. There isn't even a definition of what the word calsulus means! It is written in a very technical way that may be suitable for a mathematical encyclopedia but not a general one. What "which allows control over arbitrarily small and arbitrarily large numbers" means? What is an arbitrarily small number. You have to consider writing this article from the point of view of someone who has minimal knowledge in Math. There is a lot of unexplained and probably uneccessary jargon in the current form that does not really help.
There are many reasons to delist this article from WP:GA, one being that is does not follow the Well-Written criteria (point a, b, c and d) and another that there is an ongoing controversy regarding the historical origin of calculus. Once more, think that you are writing for a general audience. I look forward to the rewrite announced above ! Roger jg 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscure article Removed Status of Good Article

message: See What is a good article? for further details on the statements below.
: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: 
Bear in mind that I am not well-versed in calculus and that I am therefore reviewing from an external perspective.
*1b - What is calculus? The lead section does not actually state this - it merely says that it has 'applications in many fields'.
*1c - Again, lead problem. Also, there are a few minor problems with jargon - arbitrarily large? Needs further explanation. However, I have not failed 1d, since the rest of the article is well-explained/linked with examples.
*5 - The discussion above must be resolved before I can pass the article.
Some work is required on this article - but its basically simple explanations of what is already there and the resolution of the discussion above.
--ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 09:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article Review - Fail

message: I think the question of references got drowned out in the recent discussion storm. What is the plan regarding adding references and citations to more than just the history section, or are they even needed? I offered earlier to provide all the refs I have and I think all of us here are fairly well armed in that department, its just a matter of consensus.Cronholm144 23:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are needed, again though as guidelines to explain the basics; if we include an explenation of differentiation, then i think it'd be best to add in a <ref> that has a note on how a particular author said something similar to how we did; that way we're able to have people pointed to areas of relevant bibliography (shock horror word!) to further their studies if neccesary.   ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 06:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: Things have settled down somewhat here, I don't know if we have a pure consensus, but certainly the state of flux the article has been in recently has leveled off. Keeping this in mind, and the fact that we have "defined" calculus, I would like to point out that we have actually addressed the points raised at the GA Review. So, what do you think? I would hate to jump the gun on this one (like last time), but I think the article is definitely GA-nomination worthy now.--Cronholm144 08:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but i think the article still needs to be beautified and made more continuous. The information is there, it just needs to flow very smoothly from one section to the other  -- at the moment it doesn't because there's definitions within the paragraph and it's somewhat choppy. I'll work on it shortly.   ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 08:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly oppose submitting any article to the incompetent and illiterate criticism of GA. Why insult your good work?  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: GA approval is a much less broken system than GA review, because it only requires the input of one editor, and there is a reasonable chance to get an experienced and thoughtful editor who is not obsessed with citations and will instead comment on improving the article overall. Still, on the road to A-class, we don't need to make such a big leap: I had another look at the article, and think at least a small promotion is long overdue. Geometry guy 21:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please, be sure to carefully copyedit the article before submitting it to any review! After looking at it for a few seconds I have already spotted a few punctuation problems (missing commas, etc), and there are probably more in there! Arcfrk 03:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA ready? 

message: A real question, however, is what is "complex and expansive problems" supposed to mean. We should avoid both adjectives anyway; "complex" could be confused with complex numbers; "expansive" with "expanding"; but what is meant here? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what that sentence is trying to convey is that calculus is used in a wide variety of fields, and can solve a mathematically diverse set of problems. --Cheeser1 02:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I assume by algebra you meant elementary algebra? It reads better now though. --Cheeser1 04:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work everyone, it is good to see some fresh faces around here. :)--Cronholm144 04:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be aware that everyone and his brother has taken a stab at rewriting the calculus article.  Being dogmatic about the superiority of your version is not apt to lead to a stable article. Rick Norwood 15:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  You are right, of course, but do we want a stable article where no one quite understands what 'complex and expansive problems' means? Arcfrk 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imprecise Wording 

message: What do you all think of replacing the phrase "power series" in the first paragraph with the word "series", since arguably the Fourier series is at least as important as the Taylor series. Rick Norwood 15:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Power series

message: "Calculus (from Latin, "pebble" or "little stone") is a mathematical subject that includes the study of limits, derivatives, integrals, and infinite series.  It includes two major branches, differential calculus and integral calculus, that are related by the fundamental theorem of calculus.  In modern university education, prerequisites to calculus include algebra, trigonometry, and analytic geometry, which are often combined in a course titled precalculus.  Most modern university students do not take calculus, but it is required for all majors in mathematics, any of the sciences, and engineering, and is often required for majors in business.  Calculus has widespread applications in science and technology and is used to solve problems for which algebra alone is insufficient, especially problems that require optimum solutions."
Comments? Rick Norwood 16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed rewrite

message: I strongly object to the use of "method" in discussing the the Egyptians. In this context, it implies that they had some rudimentary form of calculus, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. 
You don't need calculus to prove the volume of a pyramidal frustrum; all you need to do is subtract the volume of the missing pyramid from the volume of the whole pyramid, and the fact that the volume of a pramid is one third of the enclosing block is an exercise in solid geometry, which Euclid did quite well. To determine it, by trial and error, may well be easier; after all, the Egyptians did have extensive practical experience with packing blocks into pyramids.
Please remember what the Moscow papyrus actually says. To papaphrase slightly:
{Volume of pyramid frustrum]
Base 4, top 2, height 6
Multiply 4 by 4? 16
Multiply 4 by 2?  8
multiply 2 by 2?  4
add?   28
Multiply by one third of 6? 56
"See, it is 56; your have found it correctly"
I do not recall the standard translation accurately enough to find it on the web, but it is widely available; Morris Kline's history of mathematics, for example. This is, I think, better described as "working out" the volume, than any of the more highfalutin phrases I and others have been using. 
What is impressive to me here is the possibility they may have factored a3 minus b3 with only rudimentary algebra. 
Regards. 17:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know how they discovered the calculation above; all we know is that they used it. That's what I'm trying to make clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pyramid