Talk:Real analysis

message: I've taken the liberty of redoing large parts of this article. Much of the material was about analysis in general, and not specific to real analysis, and a large portion of it simply outlined the syllabus of a first course in real analysis. I've tried as best I can to keep the stuff that's relevant, to remove the stuff that's better dealt with elsewhere (or just plain unsuitable), and to put the material into context, although obviously more work will be needed. This article was an embarassment, and I can't claim to have fixed it, but I've tried to clean it up, and make it more maintainable. Please edit ruthlessly. James pic 12:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul

message: Real function redirects here. Is this right? I was actually looking for the article Real part when I got here. My english skills are too limited in this area, but it seemed like a reasonable search string for that article. Is there any point in adding some kind of see also... or for other uses... section? -- Asked by... 83.227.131.25 (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard that use of "real function", but I can see the logic behind it.-Wafulz (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your answer. If it doesn't make sence to native english speakers, forget it – it was probably just a matter of bad translation or misunderstanding from my side. I've also seen it written as \operatorname{Re}(z), which kind of looks like a function. Cheers, says 83.227.131.25 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct redirect? 

message: An editor changed the description of real analysis from dealing with the "set" of real numbers to the "field" of real numbers. I question whether this is an improvement. Of course, I do not deny that the real numbers form an algebraic field, but the topic of real analysis is not specifically algebraic. One might as well say that it deals with the "space" of real numbers. What do you folks think? TomS TDotO (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the word "set" even need to be in their? "Real analysis, or theory of functions of a real variable is a branch of mathematical analysis dealing with the real numbers"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brad7777 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

text: @(TomS TDotO): Real analysis is not algebraic?  Let's see, with the set of real numbers we can talk about unions and intersections, and that's about all (and incidentally, we can't tell them apart from the set of complex numbers).  If we want to do some fancy stuff like add or multiply them, then we've got to consider the field of real numbers.  On the other hand, I still agree with you that just because it's true, doesn't mean we have to say it in the lead, and I'm going to implement Brad's suggestion to just call them "the real numbers".  — ChalkboardCowboy[T] 20:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the idea of field because it emphasizes more structure and also provides a relationship to other branches of mathematics.  But perhaps it would be more accessible or simple to just say that it deals with the "real numbers".  Cazort (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Set or field of real numbers? 

message: This article was tagged as needing attention from an expert, with no specific reason expressed. I read the article and didn't see anything glaringly inaccurate. What was the issue that needed to be addressed? Jbeyerl (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  expert-subject tag? 

message: In some parts of this page, for example the definition of Uniform Continuity, definitions are constructed in the setting of general metric spaces (X,d).  Given that this article is purely about the real analysis, would it not make more sense to define everything less abstractly, in terms of the real numbers rather than a general set X? Someone looking for information on abstract analysis would surely go the the page Mathematical Analysis or, in this specific case, Uniform Continuity. EdwardRussell (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the metric space material; I added it in accidentally when I wrote that section. Thanks! Brirush (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Metric Spaces 

message: Substituted at 02:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: this is like a parody of an article written for the general user
if your mom or dad can't get it , it is at to high a level, at least for the intro and first few graphs
I am so tired of you math people and your arrogance and your inability or refusal to write things at the right level
signed, a guy who has spent a lot of time on biotech wiki  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: not written for general user

message: The mathematical analysis and complex analysis pages have really nice sidebars: Template:Math topics sidebar, Template:Complex_analysis_sidebar.
I feel that we could certainly use one here. Does anyone feel that there is anything I should consider before putting one here such as suggestions, or if this is something that would be inappropriate for this page? Youarelovedfool (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidebar template for this page?