Talk:Equation

message: I think that merging these two articles would be beneficial for those who are looking for basic descriptive information on actualy doing these mathematics. I do also think that the 'left hand/right hand' article could be maintained as succinct stand-alone resource for those searching specifiaclly for it. --anon
I vote against but I don't feel very strongly about it. I found my way here by searching Google for "right hand side". (I am writing a paper and I was curious if it is hypenated or not.) Jason Quinn 02:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also disagree with merging and removed the merge tag. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging with [[Left-hand side and right-hand side of an equation]]

message: Aren't three horizontal bars often used to distinguish an identiy from an equation?  Is this worth mentioning given the discussion of telling the difference between the two?
:I don't see why not, as long as it's clear that a reader can't rely solely on the convention, as many authors (including Wikipedia) don't usually follow it. Melchoir 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mentioning the identity symbol

message: Maybe also look here:
Gowers: What is `solved' when one solves an equation?
Boris Tsirelson 09:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  solution of equation 

message: Currently, definitions of both functional equation and differential equation refer to this article. While I understand that many people have only seen algebraic equations, it would nevertheless be useful to explain that they are not the only type of equations considered in mathematics. Arcfrk 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  expansion/clarification needed 

message: I don't dispute that Robert Recorde came up with the equals sign and therefore the first equation as we know it, but are you sure that what is in the top box is equivalent to what is in the bottom box in the picture?  I have a source (Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers by Jan Gullberg, page 107) that says that this equation in today's notation would be 14x+15=71, whereas the picture shows it to have the square root of x and absolute values of 15 and 71 (although the absolute values are the same when the numbers are positive).  Just wondering what the source of this difference is, as it would not be the first error in Gullbergs' book.--Terets (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for picture of first equation 

message: I do not agree that an identity is an equation. In fact, this is an equality of functions. Therefore, the section "Identities" is misplaced here, and should be moved to Equality (mathematics). I have just edited the lead of this article to mention "identities" in it. D.Lazard (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identities 

message: syed zain ul abdeen  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedzainulabdeen (talk • contribs) 11:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  syed zain ul abdeen 

message: As for the balance analogy: I'm not against it, but it needs to be phrased carefully in order not to be misleading. I think it is most useful for notion Nr.1 and 2., but dangerous for Nr.3., as my above squaring example should illustrate (another one is multiplying both sides with zero; this no doubt keeps the balance, but widens the solution set to all numbers). Moreover, the analogy is given (and depicted) in an own section "Analogous illustration" (which should be cleaned up, too, in this respect). - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance analogy

message: @: your notion of "term" (sourced from Richardson.1966) appears to agree with that of Addition#Notation and terminology. However, there are certainly equations that don't have a sum on either side, so your sentence "Each member will contain one or more terms", while fitting on your particular example, doesn't hold for all equations, as already  (thanks!) pointed out. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Term

message: As for Ax^2+Bx+C=y as a second example in the lead: I'd feel it would make the lead too long, and would better fit into section "Polynomial equations". Maybe, if we can illustrate another important point on this example, it's worth to be in the lead, nevertheless. Maybe, we can combine it with the lead paragraph starting "In geometry, ...", giving e.g. the parametric equation of a circle (x^2+y^2=R^2, to be moved up from section "Parameters and unknowns" in this case)? This whould have 2 variables and a parameter, too, and in addition a geometric meaning. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Second example in lead

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Equation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090816161008/http://math.exeter.edu/rparris/winplot.html to http://math.exeter.edu/rparris/winplot.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I recently grouped the essentially-identical classes of differential equation, integral equation and integro-differential equation together.  The change was reverted as "not an improvement".  I think that showing the connection between these nominally different types of equations is indeed an improvement, even if my particular wording was not perfect.  I have made my changes again.  If anyone wants to revert them, please explain here why that is done. LachlanA (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grouping types of equations 

message: At: Equation#Types of equations, should the list begin with something like: "constant equation for degree zero", since equations like "y+2=5" are typically the first type of equations that students solve?  (And to be more in sync with this article: Degree of a polynomial#Names of polynomials by_degree) DKEdwards (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the answer is no, since "equation of degree zero" and "constant equation" are rarely used, while "polynomial of degree zero" is common. D.Lazard (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are they called then?  Just "linear"?  It seems they determine a point in a one dimensional space rather than a "line", unless we implicitly assume a 2nd dimension.  Should there at least be a comment explaining the convention? "linear equation for degree one and zero"? DKEdwards (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: An equation that determines a point on a line has the form x=c, and is therefore linear. Typical equations of degree zero would be 3=0 and 0=0. They are so trivial that it is not interesting to name them. In other words, for being interesting, an equation must contain unknowns or variables, and this excludes the degree zero. D.Lazard (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  degree zero?