Talk:Calculus/Archive 2

message: I'm not sure on the new lead it seems to have lots of fancy maths words in it. You need to get through two sentances before you get to anything substantial. I'm not sure how a layman would get it. How about
:Calculus is a central branch of mathematics which deal with infinitesimal (infinitly small quantities). In Differential Calculus the ration of two infinitesimal values is considered which allow rates of change to be calculated and slopes of curves to be found. In Integral Calculus and infinite number of infinitesimal quantities are added together, giving the areas under a curves and exact summations to be found.
Just a quick attempt to simplify and reduce jargon to a minimum. --Salix alba (talk) 01:12, 19 December 006 (UTC)
Sorry to be picky, but:
'while integral calculus focuses on the accumulation of infinitely small quantities over time'
how is time essential to integration?. Salix alba is on the right track here surely? Expitheta 20:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Accepting the flame I'm likely to receive for trashing a GA-status article, I've basically rewritten the article from scratch -- retaining what I thought I could use, of course. Why, you ask? Well, I remember a few years back, before I took years of calculus, differential equations, and all that, coming to the calculus article to see what it was all about -- and leaving with my head spinning (and I was a smart kid). Now, someone who looks up 'chain rule,' 'partial derivative,' 'Taylor expansion,' whatever, is likely to have a pretty good background to understand what's going on with symbols and concepts. Likewise, someone who looks up 'history of calculus' is looking for information about ancient Indian mathematics and the Newton vs. Lorenz issue. But... someone who just punches in calculus is probably a late high school or early university student who wants a basic explanation and a grip on the concepts. Once you learn calculus, it's beautiful how everything fits, but before then, it's a jumbled mess that seems impossible (maybe just because the ideas seem so simple but the applications are so powerful -- life is rarely like that). This basic, umbrella article should be a gentle introduction to the concepts, symbols, and methods... nothing more.
Anyway, what I'm saying is, revert if you must, but at least think about what this article should be (because I don't think it was anywhere near good enough).
BryanHolland 12:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewritten 

message: I came to the page to get a basic understanding of calculus, and it didn't help at all.  I tried to find out what "b" is in mx+b under the differentiation heading, but my comments were removed without any acknowledgement or helpful explanations.  i went elsewhere to find out, and put it up, acknowledging that it wasn't directly relevant to the discussion at hand, thinking that would help others with the same question, but it was removed.  you can't just throw an equation in front of people unfamiliar with it and expect them to understand parts of it you don't explain.   You should try to improve parts that people flag as confusing.  Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.78.27.85 (talk • contribs).
:Questions like that are not supposed to be posted in the middle of the page.  Posing those same questions here would be much better - or maybe at WP:RD/MA or WT:WPM.  I'll bet someone would help you out if you can find the right place to ask.  For your particular question, you might want to look at the Slope article as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a web-forum. You can't just stick a question right in the middle of an article. Furthermore, Wikipedia did provide an answer readily - the wiki-link to linear function would have explained that form quite clearly. The article on calculus cannot repeat things as fundamental as basic high-school algebra concepts like that - that's why there are wiki-links. You click the word linear (right before the equation y=mx+b) and it takes you right to the expaination you were looking for. There are "flags" to put into articles to denote problems, and if you have a specific question, you can come here to the article's talk page, where someone could have cleared this all up for you. However, it was not at all ambiguous, as there was a clear explaination of linear functions just a click away, as it should be. 149.43.x.x 01:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a good explanation

message: Why do people keep replacing the history with nonsense about some jimmy bollman ?  --Jackaranga 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are called vandals.  Usually they are children who are trying to get attention.  Revert and ignore.  Tag the revert "rv v", short for "revert vandalism". Rick Norwood 14:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Correct me if I am wrong.
I believe that Newton had arranged for this particular branch of mathematics to be called "The Calculus". Does this come up anywhere in this article?Gagueci 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's usually referred to as the calculus in more formal situations, and as just calculus in less formal ones. It would seem that the the would be appropriate here, but it's by far not the biggest problem in this article. 71.102.156.213 05:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Calculus 

message: I suspect that the main reason this article got delisted was the use of language such as "linear operator", and "inverse linear operations". This stuff needs to made more informal, with more formal sentiments used to improve more specialized articles in this area. Geometry guy 01:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now a lot less formal than it was when it was delisted.  But, I think you are correct that "linear operator" is too technical for the intro.  I've deleted the clause, and I think the intro reads more smoothly. Rick Norwood 12:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too advanced language 

message: Shouldn't http://www.calculus.org be in the External Links? I know it's already #1 on Google, but it really is the place that students should be directed to; I think they'd appreciate it. I was actually stunned to find that that link wasn't already on here. (Sorry about my previous link add; I'm new.) Thanks! Ken Kuniyuki 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent suggestion, thanks. Looks like they have good stuff, maintained by a good university, includes links to other sites. I think it should be at the top, and added it there. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed link 

message: When I was reading the sub-article on differentiation I noticed it said 
"The slope, or rise over run, can be expressed as:
:m={f(x+h) - f(x)\over{(x+h) - x}}"
which seems to be slightly misleading because this expression does indeed output a slope, but it is the slope of the secant line for some points x and x+h on the function f rather than the general slope of f where f defines a line that the article had been discussing up till that point. I think mention of this might be helpful to new readers.
Also, just two minor things, there is no mention of y until
then the function can be written f(x) = m x + b, where: 
:m={rise \over{run}}= {\mbox{change in } y \over \mbox{change in } x} = {\Delta y \over{\Delta x}}.
I think that to avoid confusion perhaps it should be written
f(x) = y = m x + b, where:
as is typically done in when introducing function notation in textbooks
and the article uses "linear operator" and "linear" function fairly closely together and people who do not understand the difference between a line and a linear transformation might become a touch confused.  
One final thing, what do you think about archiving the older discussions? The page has become rather long and the majority of the older conflicts have been resolved.
Cronholm144 05:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these suggestions are good.  I'll try to work on the first two today. Rick Norwood 12:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differentiation 

message: I added calculus to the Good Article nominee list because I believe that the issues that were the cause for its demotion have been addressed. Cronholm144 22:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we'll see how it goes.   ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 07:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nomination 

message: Natural Philosopher has gone to quite a lot of work to change all the math d's to mathrm d's in the differentials associated with integrals.  I've checked several books, and all of them use math d's.  Can Natural Philosopher quote a source for using mathrm d's for differentials? Rick Norwood 12:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a discussion about this at WT:WPM recently (last month). The punchline is that both usages are acceptable, but editors should not go through articles making wholesale changes from one notation to the other, as Natural Philosopher has done here. Even though I prefer the roman d, I'm happy for you to revert these edits. Geometry guy 17:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mathrm d 

message: There are people who spend a great deal of their spare time going through Wikipedia and changing all the BC's to BCE's and there are others who spend a great deal of their spare time going through Wikipedia and changing all the BCE's to BC's.  It keeps them off the street.  Best to ignore them. Rick Norwood 22:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe they are on the street editing this before they have their next drug-related bowel movement. I kid; every contribution no matter what it's intentions, so long as good, is okay by me :-)   ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 22:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC BCE 

message: Given the extremely technical nature of calculus (to non mathematicians) and the importance and interest of it, might it be a good idea to follow the example of the Entropy article which has a separate Introduction to entropy article? Tomgreeny 18:11, 1 June 2007 
Did you read the article? What in particular about the article is overly technical? We have attempted to craft an article that builds slowly and is intelligible to the layman. The reason that entropy has a separate article for introduction is because the math (calculus in fact!) is very difficult to understand if you are just trying to understand what entropy is in a general sense. This article is already aimed at general audiences, so having a separate introduction would be redundant. --Cronholm144 01:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indroduction to Calculus Article? 

message: Cheeser1 has, cheesily, threatened to revert war if he does not get his way on curricula. Does anybody else support his crusade, or should we simply recast the first sentence as well, to get rid of the bone of contention? I honestly thought education was far enough; guess not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for blatantly violating WP:GF. All I meant was that I will revert it because the issue was resolved and my version was determined to be appropriate,  not because I intended to start a revert war. You know, if you trump it up in your imagination as if I'm crusading to destroy your article by reverting the change from "curricula" to "curriculum" (and subsequently, to "education"), it's going to start to seem that way. Works the same way as WP:CABAL. You people want to dumb down the article with imprecise language, feel free. I'm done with this worthless argument. Don't expect a response, regardless of what you say here. --Cheeser1 00:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I intentionally archived the entire discussion to get that kind of silliness of this talk page. I think that we are all on the same page on 1. avoiding the word or 2. reaching a consensus without an editwar, so I plan on archiving this rather soon as well. Any further discussion of commonly used idioms vs. latin plural should take place on the talk pages of the concerned editor. --Cronholm144 04:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threatened revert war 

message: While adding the note for babylonian astronomer clay tablets, some edits were reverted (and perhaps the reversion also reverted.) Assuming good faith, it is wise to allow for 10 minutes from initial edits before removing content and asking for more citations. The citations requested were being adding during the event. I for one, appreciate the watchful eyes keeping track of article improvement. Kyle(talk) 20:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that these two sources  and  suffer from wp:recentism. These are non-mathematicians reporting about a non-mathematician's recent finding. A proper wp:secondary source would be one from a scholar i.e. a mathematician in a peer reviewed article. After all, this is an math article, not an archeology one. - DVdm (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I'm the person who entered the citation to the New York Times article, I don't have strong feelings about this recent development needing to appear in Wikipedia. I will go with the flow on this one. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with . These references are summaries of a single article containing one person's interpretation of some apparently related clay tablets. One needs only recall the checkered history of the interpretation of Plimpton 322 to see that this interpretation may not hold up under the scrutiny of several specialists. When that vetting is done the result will be in reliable secondary sources and we may freely cite these, but until then it should be treated as a viable theory and not as an established fact. Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, there seems to be no consensus to keep this addition, so I have removed it again (). - DVdm (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babylon Tablets Comment 

message: After having worked on the article Calculus I, user  added an entry in the See also section: . It was immediately removed by user , without an edit summary: . I restored it because I think it is a valid entry per WP:SEEALSO: . It was removed again without an edit summary: . Samantha9798 added it again: .As it would be silly to start an edit-war over this, can we, in the spirit of WP:BRD, please have a least a minimal discussion here? - DVdm (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, thx. - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I removed if before seeing this thread. Self reverted pending outcome of AFD. Meters (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. Seems unlikely to survive, so... see you later . - DVdm (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also Calculus I 

message: In the line of the complete debate and especially of the last item in my last comment in the section above I feel urged to state that I definitely tried to utter a clear objection to D.Lazards suggestions, and that in no way I consider them to be "not clearly disputed", especially when not ignoring the whole debate above. I protest against the claim in the edit comments by D.Lazard per 25 January 2017.
I do not mind any further to be disregarded in this here setting. Purgy (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim of "undisputed" 

message: There is no Dutch translated wiki to Calculus.
Can someone please look into this?
Because the subjects under calculus are available in Dutch, but not the main topic itself.
Weird enough.
Would love to read it in my language.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C01:2104:3000:9806:9E5B:420A:EEAD (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Dutch translated version 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Calculus. 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/20050911104158/http://www.math.uiowa.edu/~stroyan/InfsmlCalculus/InfsmlCalc.htm to http://www.math.uiowa.edu/~stroyan/InfsmlCalculus/InfsmlCalc.htm
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) 15:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Calculus. 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/20070614183657/http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~sean/applied_math.pdf to http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~sean/applied_math.pdf
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) 23:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Calculus. 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/20070614183657/http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~sean/applied_math.pdf to http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~sean/applied_math.pdf
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) 23:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Calculus. 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/20130530024317/http://faculty.gvsu.edu/boelkinm/Home/Download_files/Active%20Calculus%20ch1-8%20%28v.1.1%20W13%29.pdf to http://gvsu.edu/s/km
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) 04:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Thank you, wikipedia, for this opening line: 
It clarifies so much for me. Actually, it says: "This is what math is". - DePiep (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is the best "consensus" in WP could generate. You may want to look at the intense discussion about the lead here, here and here, too (scroll up ~20 lines, in case), to see the intense effort, just recently spent, to improve the lead, and you can also learn where to place your thanks more precisely. Purgy (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me to skip those readings. I'm so happy with the result as it is now. I didn't read "compromise", I read clarity. (I'm trying to understand QM these days. For example, this is the one, pre-wikipedia). -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you, wikipedia, for this opening line 

message: The lead sentence does not include the alternate term infinitesimal calculus, which would help clarify.  I'd change it myself, but Wikipedia...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.48.159 (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Also this article is the target of the redirect . I have thus exchanged the places of this term and the etymology. By the way, I have done some other modifications. D.Lazard (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Unaware of Lazard’s edit, I also made changes! Dolphin (t) 08:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the second mention of "infinitesimal calculus", as, placed there, it is unclear whether it denotes integral calculus, differential calculus, or both. By the way, it is astonishing that there was no edit conflict: I have edited all paragraphs of the lead but one, and  has edited the only paragraph that I have left unchanged! D.Lazard (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ’s changes are sound. I have no intention to meddle any further. I agree it is puzzling that I saw no alert to an Edit conflict. It seems that Edit conflicts occur when I would prefer they didn’t, and an Edit conflict doesn’t occur when it would actually be beneficial! Dolphin (t) 09:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Section 

message: "developed independently in the late 17th"?
How can it be? Both Leibniz and Newton died in 18th century. Datdinhquoc (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Newton died in 1726, which is during the 18th century. His work on the calculus was done in the late 1600's, which is the 17th century. This offset of the century number is due to the fact that there is no "zero" century. --Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2020 

message: WP:BRD is a very good idea to follow.  The short version: there already is some material in the history section about precursors to the Calculus in South Asia.  Overloading the lead with that, though, would probably lend WP:UNDUE weight to the overall importance of that with respect to the rest of the article.  We also don't discuss the precursors in ancient Greece in the lead.  Moreover, changing to a statement like  is simply not reflective of the mainstream view and violates WP:FRINGE. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you seem to be missing the point. Your edit incorrectly ascribes development of modern calculus to 17th century, which contemporary scholarship disproves. You keep stating that this is not mainstream view while providing no evidence. I have backed up my edits with reputable references including Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & University of St Andrews, Scotland. I wouldn't refer to them as 'fringe' views. This is the mainstream contemporary consensus. If you are reading material from the 1950s, I suggest kindly refer to the latest scholarship. Please note, I have not taken anything away from the article, simply adding the latest material. You seem to be doing the opposite. European contributions are amply provided in the page including precursors. But the chronology needs to be correct. In the absence of you providing evidence to disprove my references, I will be reincorporating the latest scholarship onto this article. May I suggest, please explain how you are arriving at the conclusion where you are dismissing the latest global scholarship on the subject. Please provide reference for such. Prototypehumanoid (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, take your nationalist POV nonsense elsewhere.  --JBL (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

text:  The mainstream view is that while there were pieces of the Calculus worked out, a full-fledged picture with the general tookit of it that resembles its modern form wasn't put together until Newton & Leibniz.  One single paper (the Raju one, which has some problems, which we can discuss if needed) does not allow you to make this kind of claim in the article.  Your other sources are either junk (some slides, some weird poster with a nationalist POV, etc), or are just backing up secondary stuff, like the basics of the work itself.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

text: I think I agree with @Prototypehumanoid. Further references could be added. Including Divakarans papers. Also the original paper 'Yuktibasha'. Madhava is increasingly seen as the true inventor. Marcus du sautoy for instance has done previous studies that showcase - lack of due credit to eastern mathematicians (during 17th to 21st century Europe).  Imagetoimageless (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Evidence based change should be made welcome. There has been an increasing consensus for many elements- See Madhava series, formula for pi etc...  Imagetoimageless (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

text: However for a point by point consensus in mathematics for the invention of calculus, please see Divakarans work. Imagetoimageless (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Prototypehumanoid made obviously terrible edits for dumb nationalist reasons.  Their edits were correctly reverted, and nothing that closely resembles them is going to come back into the article. --JBL (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested April 2020 additions 

message: Considering the hidden comment explicitly states that the terms in the lead are not being used in mathematical senses, it would be incorrect to use "continuous" over "contiguous" to describe change. Sikonmina (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Even for the common meanings, "continuous" and "contiguous" are not synonyms. D.Lazard (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. "Contiguous" is simply incorrect. And the note appears to be saying that the normal links for "change" and "continuous" will not have the correct mathematical meaning, not that the terms as used in the lead do not have the mathematical meaning. We correctly link to Continuous function elsewhere in the article. Meters (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "continuous" versus "contiguous" in the lead