Talk:Calculus/Archive 1

message: Someone that speaks French: The french link from this article goes to fr:Analyse (mathématiques).  The link from there to English goes to Mathematical analysis.  The link from there to french also goes to Analyse (mathématiques).  Then, I found fr:Calcul infinitésimal, which seems to be somewhat of a translation of this article.  The MS Office dictionary says that calcul means calculus (but, interestingly, not the other way round).  I just thought I'd point this out at let someone that knows this stuff sort it out.  Neonumbers 11:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  French link 

message: To Oleg's Whatever he discovered was done much earlier and in isolation - Not in isolation and not much earlier to 'Indian' development of calculus . Madhava and others from the Kerala school picked up after him and developed it further. 
Please see
 --Pranathi
: I am not sure if this was clear from what you wrote in the article. So I thought of removing it because I was not sure if it belonged there. Oleg Alexandrov 23:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Besides, that particular paragraph was concerned with the developement of the calculus in the west. I believe what you wrote belongs in a paragrph or article about calculus in India. 23:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, I did not make that clear. I don't agree with the paragraph being about calculus in the west. Calculus is global - it is not a cultural/local subject. Newton or Leibniz was first to come up with the important concepts of the calculus - this implies that they were the first in the world not just the west - right? also don't agree with though this was not known in the West at the time, and he had no contact with Western scholars. with regard to the Japanese mathematician. It is a Eurocentric sentence. Maybe it should say - "in isolation"? --Pranathi 03:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe. It was not me who wrote about the Japanese mathematician. Yes, calculus is global. The thing is, calculus, the way we know it, was developed in the West. So, there is some bias towards the West in this article, and maybe it does not expore well enough other attempts and insights in other times and other places. Oleg Alexandrov 03:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I find the "father of calculus" amusing to start with. I will now remove the mention of the other guy too. Oleg Alexandrov 23:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea. --Pranathi 03:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father of calculus 

message: I'm not quite happy with the FTOC section. I would certainly like to see the FTOC reprhased physically. Something along the lines of "If we consider the net area under the velocity curve we obtain displacement". 
In modern US textbooks, there is no mention of 1st and 2nd fundamental theorems. They are typically called FTOC (part 1) and FTOC (part 2). What's more unusual is the ordering given. What's called the 2nd FTOC is typically dealt with first -- the 1st FTOC presented as a consequence. I suppose this is pretty arbitrary.
Each part should be explained in plain english! For example, the 2nd FTOC says every continuous function has an antiderivate, namely that funny integral that confuses students to no end!
Comments?
I find this topic very interesting. As far as I can recall, there has always been *one* fundamental theorem of calculus (ftoc) - there is no *part 1* and no *part 2*. The version stated as the 2nd part in the article of Wikipedia is *the* theorem - it says *everything* that needs to be said. It is also accurate (just compare mathworld's and many other sites which state the theorem incorrectly) and shows immediately the connection between the integral and the derivative.
::What is happening here is that how you are taught the FTC depends on when you went to college.  Most modern textbooks give the FTC in two parts.  The first part says that if you define a function as a definite integral with constant lower bound, x as upper bound, and integrand f(t), then the derivative of that function is f(x).  The second part says that if F(x) is any antiderivative of f(x), then the definite integral from a to b of f(x) is equal to F(b) - F(a).  When I went to college, that second part was the FTC.  But now it is taught in two parts, because so many important functions can only be defined in terms of definite integrals. Rick Norwood 16:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Fundamental Theorem 

message: A number of things have gone into the history section that are almost right, but really wrong.  I'm going to try to fix them.  References would include Anton's Calculus, Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis, and various histories of mathematics. Rick Norwood 20:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: This sentence,
In scientific applications, the derivative is often used to find the velocity given the displacement, and the integral is often used to find the displacement given the velocity.
I don't find very clear.  More specifically I don't understand what the word displacement means in its context.
:The displacement is the distance moved.  If you move the football (forgive the US-centric example) from the twenty yard line to the fifty yard line, the displacement is thirty yards.  Is there another word that would make the example clearer? Rick Norwood 13:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On consideration, I think "change in position" will be clearer.  Thanks for the input. Rick Norwood 13:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Displacement is an important technical term used in physics and should be preserved. Perhaps linking to Displacement (vector) would be an agreeable solution, since the sentence already links to Velocity? Ferret-aaron 18:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Sadly, most of the calculus textbooks I'm familiar with (Thomas, Anton, etc.) define velocity as a scalar rather than a vector.  I know this doesn't make sense, but it is in fact what our students are being taught.  (My students know better, because I tell them so, but most students go "by the book".) Rick Norwood 18:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition of displacement and velocity 

message: I would have thought that a major change in the article such as moving the history section to the end would be discussed here first.  Guess not. Rick Norwood 22:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we all have discretion. Shuffling sections into logical order is sometimes just sensible. Someone had merged the section after the lead, meaning that had become a long chunk of history. At the end is one standard place for history. Charles Matthews 22:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving the history section 

message: Having the fundamental theorem of calculus in is good I think. Yes, this is an introductory calculus article, however, some people reading this article would have known some calculus. So, while one should not offend the newbies, one should also write important things in, like the above-mentioned theorem, as long as it is not too proeminent or not too early in the article. One may lessen the impact by carefully providing links to all concepts involved. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But again, surely the more important things to define are the definitions of integrals and derivatives, if we're going to define anything?  Yes, the fundamental theorem of calculus is fundamental, but not as fundamental as those two, despite the name. —Simetrical (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, first two sections are about derivatives and integrals. So, I would say that your requirement is satisfied, as the fundamental theorem of calculus is in the third section. No? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the order it is in now seems about right. I think you really have to cover the fundamental theorem, because it is after all, fundamental to the subject. But putting it later with more technical material is probably good too. The ideal technical article gives a balanced overview of the subject. The lead should be an accurate overview of the article with as few undefined terms as possible. Then each section should proceed from easier to understand overviews into the nitty gritty towards the end. Then order the sections from easiest to most difficult if possible without sacrificing having the article make sense.  To that end I tried working the examples in the lead into prose instead of bullet point lists, otherwise they break up the flow too much. In any case the article is in a better state than it used to be, but needs some help. I guess we should proceed by deciding what are the high level topics an overview of calculus should cover. Definitely as it currently has, we need differential and integral calculus, history, applications, and a fundamental theorem/foundations section (could we combine those?). But I was also thinking the subject could use a section on how it is taught, it's impact on curriculum, etc. I was thinking the applications section needs expanding, but I suppose you could also argue that should instead be built into other sections. What do you guys think? - Taxman Talk 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamental theorem of calculus

message: Spinoza defined the terms "perfection"; "sorrow-boredom-joy"; "hate-indifference-love" by their causes; not by their properties. They  can be expressed using a Calculus format—precise definition, rates-of-change at any one instant.
Yesselman 23:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differential Calculus of the Emotions 

message: I don't thing we need two economic examples in the introduction, but I like the new example better than the old, which is vague.  Replace? Rick Norwood 22:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut it down to two examples for differential and two for integral, but the removed one could be worked back in if someone feels strongly about it. - Taxman Talk 23:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples in the introduction 

message: I previously added this example to the derivative section:
:The derivative answers the question: as we consider progressively smaller and smaller pieces of time, what does the average speed computed by Distance/Time approach?  If the car moves one kilometer over a span of one specific minute (perhaps the minute 0 ≤ t ≤ 60), and half a kilometer over a span of half a minute (0 ≤ t ≤ 30), and a fourth of a kilometer over a span of a fourth of a minute, and so on for any useful measure of time, we say that the car's instantaneous speed is one kilometer per minute, or 60 km/h.  If, on the other hand, the car was speeding up or slowing down over the examined timeframe, it might move one kilometer over the course of one minute, but only 250 meters over the course of 30 seconds, 100 over fifteen seconds, 40 over 5 seconds, and perhaps as the amount of time considered is reduced closer and closer to zero, we will come up with a limit of 9 m/min, getting closer and closer to that figure (but perhaps without ever quite reaching it).  As this example shows, average speed over any interval is not necessarily equivalent to instantaneous speed.
Now, this example is a bit lengthy and confusing, perhaps, but I think that something like it would be appropriate.  It would allow a layman to get an idea of what exactly is happening when you take the limit of a function's rate of change, and what an instantaneous rate of change is.  Currently, the reader is told things like "[d]ifferential calculus can be used to determine the instantaneous speed at any given instant"—but not told what "instantaneous speed" is.  This stuff really isn't obvious. —Simetrical (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My writing skills tend to be somewhat erratic.  This is one of my worse pieces.  :)  Maybe there's no good way to explain what I'm getting at, basically introducing the concept of a limit and a derivative at the same time.  I think I'll see what I can come up with later. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples in derivative/integral sections

message: What does this has to do with calculus? Isn't this just a fancy name for a common-sensical idea which everyone across all civilizations must have known. Most of them would have considered it too obvious to even mention. deeptrivia (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The key idea behind calculus is the idea of the limit.  It may seem obvious to you, but it is not at all obvious to most students, and it has only been written down a very few times in history.  The Method of Exhaustion is the earliest known expression of this idea. Rick Norwood 18:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've attempted to add a reference for the requested "fact" but the wikipedia explanation of how to add references is clear as mud.  If I can understand calculus, and cannot understand how to add references to a wiki article, I think the section on how to add references needs rewriting. Rick Norwood 18:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Method of exhaustion]] 

message: This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because the article lists none of its references or sources --Allen3 talk 20:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is very strange, because now there is a substantial list of references and sources.  Do we need more? Rick Norwood 01:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed a very long list of items under both the "Further reading" and "External links" sections, but as per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Further reading/external links these sections are for items which have not been used as sources for the article.  If you know for sure that the texts that are listed are able to verify the article, please make the appropriate updates. --Allen3 talk 02:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article removed from [[Wikipedia:Good articles]]

message: "Differental and integral calculus...calculus has two basic principles: Differential... and integral calculus" 
This article's intro is redundent! Should we change the beginning to Calculus, instead of Differental and integral calculus?
:: Nah, there is a difference.  While it is true that differential and integral calculus are linked, there is the obvious distinction between them.  In particular, you might refer to developments by Euxodus and Archimedes as integral calculus, while developments by Madhava would be in differential calculus.  Of course, developments by Newton, Leibniz and others linking the two would probably be in just "calculus", I guess.  In any event, I think the intro is ok as it stands. Grokmoo 16:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, and would also note that differential and integral calculus are are only two (closely related) types of calculus. There are several other types of calculus (e.g. propositional calculus, umbral calculus), and so we must be specific, despite the prevailing misconception that calculus means only differential and integral calculus.149.43.x.x 04:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant redundancy 

message: Paul August removed some links about discoveries of calculus in India.  I've put them back, at least for the time being.  Throughout wikipedia there are a large numbers of claims about mathematical discoveries in India that are very general in nature and which keep being pushed further and further back in time.  We need evidence for those claims, and the two links in question purport to provide evidence.  This is a subject that needs to be investigated further. Rick Norwood 22:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, it may have already been investigated further, but mainstream math history may have chosen to be silent on the issue - either not being keen on disturbing the existing status quo or it being eurocentric in nature. Just providing a friendly opposing pov to your scepticism.. : ). I would suggest a search in books.google.com for hardcopy references - it may provide you a better comfort level. --Pranathi 03:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Rick, Which contribution are you talking about? I don't see anything in this page that purports to be from India from the BC. I haven't come here in a while and I see that there have been a lot of updates though. --Pranathi 19:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian mathematics 

message: I didn't think the etymology of the word "calculus" was appropriate as the second sentence of the article's main paragraph, so I created a subsection of the History section and pasted it there. Soltras 05:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Hi, I was thinking of further fleshing out the history of section, with a list of some specific contributions by Newton, Fermat, Leibniz, and others, and also information about developments after Newton (which is mysteriously absent) when I realized something.  The history section is already too long.  We already have an article called the history of calculus.  Detailed lists of contributions by Aryabhata, Madhava, and others should probably go there, not here.  If we included this much detail on every contributer, we would be duplicating the entire history of calculus page here.
To me, this situation is misrepresentative.  I'd like to wait for some feedback on this before I make any changes, since my changes here have often been repeatedly reverted without explanation, and I know a lot of people feel strongly about this Indian Mathematics issue. Grokmoo 21:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not propose something specific. The key is to stay balanced, treating each topic in relation to their importance, and do some good research. Anything less wouldn't be much of an improvement. Per WP:V any claims that can't be substantiated with references can be removed, but to be balanced, needed bits need to be researched. - Taxman Talk 23:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think shortenning a bit the histry is fine. Too huge paragraphs on indian mathematics is too much in this article I think. Shortening the Newton-Leibniz saga a bit could be good too. All, as Rick says, to keep things balanced. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I shortened it a bit, although not too much.  I think I have managed to pack in a lot more informative content, though, with now a brief bit on the development since Newton.  To fit this all in, I removed some detail to the Indian mathematics and Newton-Leibniz section.  This stuff probably goes better in the main history of calculus article.  I hope the new section is agreeable. Grokmoo 01:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of 

message: Calculus is a very important field and it's great to see that effort is being made to make this a great article. I think adding the following two images in their respective sections to graphically illustrate the difference between differential and integral calculus would greatly add to the strength of this article:
As a final comment, it would be great to be able to see which statements are supported by which reference. One commonly used way to do this is inline references, but I think there is some artistic freedom there. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two suggestions about the images.  The first, to my eye at least, is misleading, because there is a "dot" on the tangent line that is not the point of tangency.  In the second image, the area between a and b should be shaded, to distinguish it from the area between the y-axis and a. Rick Norwood 21:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on GA nomination 

message: Am I the only one seeing "failure to parse" messages wherever there should be a formula? --Spangineeres (háblame) 22:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything seems fine to me. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK05:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formulas? 

message: Great article, but one suggestion, shouldn't we include the power of a function rule within the differentiation category on the right hand side. Or is there even such an article on Wikipedia yet? --Arsenous Commodore 00:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what rule you mean. Are you thinking of the chain rule (when the outer function is a power)? 149.43.x.x 02:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power of a function rule 

message: i'm placing a request for references on the section in relation to india and calculus history. i've noticed a disturbing trend on a lot of history articles with a lot of POV pushing.  these claims should be removed if they can not be verified because i have not read any of these supposed discoveries in any history book on mathematics. and please do not claim that the information was suppressed by the academic community... we need evidence for these claims. Truth100 01:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost the whole article is unreferenced. I've added a couple of refs to the Indian claims. See the refs on Kerala School and Yuktibhasa article for more.-- thunderboltz(Deepu) 08:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: indian history of mathematics

message: Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and subject content. Currently it would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 05:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: If we want to bring this article to FA status I think that the following things should be adressed:
#Shorten the lead a bit. Add intro paragraph after the lead and put the overflow in there if need be.
#More citations are needed, especially in the history section.
#Expand on applications. There should be some comment regarding the fact that calculus is taught as a basic course in so many branches of education.
#Check rigor and remove dubious bits (like the one about division by 0. 
Feel free to add items to this list and to cross out those that have been adressed.
Pascal.Tesson 18:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that the "bot" is only a semi-bot, and apparently uses a script that anyone can run on an article? Homestarmy 03:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, I never noticed that I could have my own peer review bot. Heres what it gave me:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
*Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), meter (A) (British: metre), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), traveled (A) (British: travelled), travelled (B) (American: traveled).
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
Hope we can use it. Tarret 22:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: How is the lead too long, it seems about right to me..... Homestarmy 02:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article collaboration: a to do list 

message: Calculus isn't really a branch of mathematics, anymore than arithmetic is.  Both are pretty much used in all of mathematics and just considered basic tools.  
Also, it's nice to see all the physical applications mentioned, but very little is mentioned of its ubiquity in modern mathematics in general.  --C S (Talk) 00:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a branch of mathematics 

message: Article says, "When Newton and Leibniz first published their results, there was great controversy over which mathematician (and therefore which country) deserved credit." but I understand from the Wikipedia article on the controversy itself (to which this should link) that the controversy evolved many years after Leibniz published his results. Also, the slant of the story itself, as it is told here, seems to favor one side (Newton).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rentstrike (talk • contribs) 18:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance and accuracy concerning controversy concerning origins? 

message: It is my understanding that the formal name for calculus is "The Calculus."  While the "The" is generally dropped these days, isn't it still appropriate to capitalize the word Calculus?  
"A calculus is a way of calculating, so mathematicians sometimes talk about the 'calculus of logic', the 'calculus of probability', and so on.  But all are agreed there is really only one Calculus, pure and simple, and this is spelled with a capital C" (emphasis mine) ()
Interestingly, the index of the book does not capitalize the word.  
It would seem seems that we should at least mention the issue of capitalization in the article.  
Billiam1185 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization of Calculus

message: Perhaps more examples on this matter.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedrovalle (talk • contribs) 13:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should be more technical information 

message: To be clear, most who add to the mathematical pages have probable forgotten more than I know about maths (I'm British, so I refuse to call it math). However it couldn't escape my notice that when Google put Leonhard Euler up in a Google doodle and specifically mentioned his historical significance to maths and his important work on infinitesimal calculus, that there is no mention of him whatsoever on the infinitesimal calculus page. Is Google incorrect in its highlighting the importance of Euler? Or is his work on infinitesimal calculus not as important as made out on his Wikipedia page? Either one or the other needs correction?
:This is definitely an oversight. Euler should be mentioned both on calculus and infinitesimal calculus.  Would you like to contribute a comment there? Tkuvho (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Leonhard Euler not mentioned ? 

message: I think there should be something in the introduction about when it was invented and (gulp) who invented it.  At the risk of being beaten over the head by all the history revisionists and refactorers out there, I think that should be the 17th century, Newton, and Leibniz. --ChetvornoTALK 00:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introduction should include when and who. 

message: The Neumann quote box is hanging on Newton's image edge. Can someone fix it? Tried to, but got rolled-back. Formatting problems. --J. D. Redding 00:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote hanging on Newton's edge 

message: Come on, people, let's hold the line for general references.  We don't have to give in to the inline-cite extremists, not here.  For most aspects of the topic, all our refs are going to say the same thing, probably in almost the same words.  Save the inline cites for the stuff that's a little particular, and don't make the reader work through a forest of little blue numbers. --Trovatore (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My take on this... someone comes along and makes some subtle changes. Without inline refs it tends to be pretty hard—if not impossible—to check the sources, at least for me, having not significantly contributed to the article in the past. Inline refs make this much easier. - DVdm (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I resist giving in to citation extremists on non-controversial facts, but having some citations are still useful. For instance, the large Principles section of this article has no citations. If a curious student wanted to learn more about principles of calculus, there are zero pointers to a good source or two on this. It's a flaw. I think the more relaxed citation guidelines in WP:SCICITE would be appropriate here: about one general ref per paragraph. --Mark viking (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not a citation extremist. But this article doesn't even meet a one general reference per SECTION standard, much less one general ref per paragraph. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really? 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Calculus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "almeida":
From Madhava of Sangamagrama: 
From Indian mathematics: 
From Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Calculus]] 

message: Request received to merge Infinitesimal calculus into Calculus. User:Unsigned request.  Reason= unknown.  Please discuss here.  GenQuest "Talk to Me" 00:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: I've removed this from the article's Ancient History section since it should be dealt with here.

Should something be added to the article in way of clarifying this point? Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient History Section 

message: Read description. Mesmerate (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's explained in Leibniz notation. I'd support including that but not more. Also, by the way, please indent your comments (your next comment below should have two colons (::) appended before it, just like this comment has one before it).--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of this section is misleading.  Whether or not x approaches zero has nothing to do with dx and never did.  If, for example, we take the limit as x approaches 7, then dx is still the change in x.  Rick Norwood (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of the change of the meaning to the notation "dx" from meaning infintesimal, to meaning shorthand for the change in x, whether or not x approaches 0.