Talk:Periodic function

message: There is some content at oscillator that needs sorting out. Please read the proposal at Talk:oscillator Cutler 18:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Help wanted at [[oscillator]]

message: The function name f is re-used here, sometimes for an arbitrary function and sometimes for a specific one. Would it be clearer if the function that gives the "fractional part" of its argument were named something else? Frac is a reasonably common name for this operation in programming languages. --FOo 02:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Overuse of f for function name

message: Should constant functions be considered periodic? If f is a constant function, then f(x+p) = f(x) for all p, in which case there is no “smallest” such positive p.
Also, consider the following function of the real numbers:
:\mbox{f}(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}1&x\mbox{ rational}\\
0&x\mbox{ irrational}\end{array}\right.
From
:rational + rational = rational
:irrational + rational = irrational
it follows that f(x+q) = f(x) for any real number x and rational number q (but again there is no “smallest” such positive q). Should this strange function be considered periodic?
Jane Fairfax 09:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see any requirement on the smallest period in the article. I think these functions are indeed periodic according to the definition. For continuous non-constant functions I think one can prove the existence of the smallest period. For stranger functions, well, we accept them as they are. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant functions (and one other function) 

message: Unfortunately a search on "Aperiodic" links instead to "Periodic", which of course has the opposite meaning and quite different usage. This will cause needless confusion. Could somebody please insert a Disambiguation page and an entry for Aperiodic. Or Whatever is appropriate. Gutta Percha (talk)
:The concept of "aperiodic" is essentially the concept of "periodic" seen from the opposite direction:
information about what the one means is also information about what the other means by its negative. I have added an explanation of the word "aperiodic" to the lead of this article, which seems to me the best way of dealing with the issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aperiodic 

message: According to my college book on mathematics (in Danish), a periodic function needs to have all of R as domain. But according to the definition in this article the domain can also be a subset of R, so for example the tangent function is a periodic function after the definition in the article, but not after the definition in my book. So I think different definitions should be discussed, and sources should be given. Best regards, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of periodic function 

message: I found this otherwise informative article hard on the eyes. Inline variables and symbols varied among raw HTML, , and LaTeX, and some formulas were in raw HTML as well. I am familiar with the relevant page on mathematical formatting in Wikipedia Help, and with LaTeX, but not so much with . I am aware that opinions vary on the relative merits of LaTeX and  for inline variables. I prefer LaTeX for everything, but have no desire to impose my preference unilaterally. In the belief though that some improvement is better than none, in most sections, I converted inline variables and symbols to LaTeX as I did the formulas that were in HTML. Two sections had  formatting for inline variables together with LaTeX formulas. I left these intact in part again because I am less facile with . I think it’s now more readable, but the article is still not fully consistent format-wise. I seek professional advice and if the feeling is that the inline stuff should be rendered in , I’ll be happy to change it. Jmcclaskey54 (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the changes look good! Thank you for making them.  Personally, I'm happy with LaTeX. Cheers, Doctormatt (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks — I will wait a little longer but if the two of us remain the consensus, I will change it all to LaTeX. Jmcclaskey54 (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  standardizing format