Talk:Exponent: Difference between revisions
imported>Barry R. Smith |
imported>Barry R. Smith (proposal about content) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Is there a special cause for using <math>5\times 5</math> instead of <math>5 \cdot 5</math> ? [[User:Alexander Wiebel|Alexander Wiebel]] 15:10, 3 July 2008 (CDT) | Is there a special cause for using <math>5\times 5</math> instead of <math>5 \cdot 5</math> ? [[User:Alexander Wiebel|Alexander Wiebel]] 15:10, 3 July 2008 (CDT) | ||
: Is there a special cause for using <math>5 \cdot 5</math> instead of <math>5 \times 5</math>? As the variable "x" does not yet appear on the page, I don't see a cause for confusion. On the other hand, <math>\times</math> appears as more substantial and visible than <math>\cdot</math> | : Is there a special cause for using <math>5 \cdot 5</math> instead of <math>5 \times 5</math>? As the variable "x" does not yet appear on the page, I don't see a cause for confusion. On the other hand, <math>\times</math> appears as more substantial and visible than <math>\cdot</math>[[User:Barry R. Smith|Barry R. Smith]] 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
== Maturity of the definition == | == Maturity of the definition == | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:I agree most emphatically with Barry's rewording. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | :I agree most emphatically with Barry's rewording. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
== Content == | |||
The Wikipedia exponent page crams everything together, including complex exponents and sets as exponents. I don't see a need for this -- those specialized topics can have their own more sophisticated pages. I have therefore been more expansive so far about the simplest kinds of exponents and rules that they obey. | |||
We should have agreement about what types of exponents to put on this page. I vote for an exposition up to rational exponents, as calculus is required to move to real number exponents and beyond. Links should then be given to more sophisticated types of exponents. Also, I think variables as exponents should appear, although the real benefit of exponential functions only occurs when exponents are allowed to be real numbers. Exponential functions are deserving of their own page in any case.[[User:Barry R. Smith|Barry R. Smith]] 01:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:03, 2 December 2008
Cross vs. dot
Is there a special cause for using instead of ? Alexander Wiebel 15:10, 3 July 2008 (CDT)
- Is there a special cause for using instead of ? As the variable "x" does not yet appear on the page, I don't see a cause for confusion. On the other hand, appears as more substantial and visible than Barry R. Smith 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Maturity of the definition
At the request of a fellow Citizen, I am rewording the first sentence to sound more sophisticated -- I agree with him that the present version sounds like it is geared towards a child, rather than an undergraduate. ...said Barry R. Smith (talk) 14:24, October 26, 2008
- I agree most emphatically with Barry's rewording. Milton Beychok 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Content
The Wikipedia exponent page crams everything together, including complex exponents and sets as exponents. I don't see a need for this -- those specialized topics can have their own more sophisticated pages. I have therefore been more expansive so far about the simplest kinds of exponents and rules that they obey.
We should have agreement about what types of exponents to put on this page. I vote for an exposition up to rational exponents, as calculus is required to move to real number exponents and beyond. Links should then be given to more sophisticated types of exponents. Also, I think variables as exponents should appear, although the real benefit of exponential functions only occurs when exponents are allowed to be real numbers. Exponential functions are deserving of their own page in any case.Barry R. Smith 01:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)