# Talk:Gamma function

## Contents

## Integrals[edit]

I prefer the form (operator-like) instead of the form ; both are correct; no need to change it the next time:D --ShinTakezou 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

- Hmm, I never saw this form in mathematical literature. Technically, there is no any multiplication of
*f(x)*by*dx*. You cannot commute them, if you meant that. And integral operator is not equal to definite integral. The definite integral using the integral operator would be sort of: . --Dmitry-kazakov 20:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

- I did my math in my life, and I've seen it. Seen or not, there's a simple analogy between and . Going into
*definite thing*, there's no a rule stating that can't mean the integral of f(x) computed between x_{0}and x_{1}; the analogy with derivative could be (or any of the form you prefer to say the derivative of f(x) computed in x_{0}); no need for the integral to put limits "outside" the "operator boundary" like your attempt . More close analogy would be with the sum (the integral sign is nothing but an S). But this discussion is OT for RC. Mine was not an error, I will write it the same way for other "math" tasks; no need to*fix*it. --ShinTakezou 11:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

- I did my math in my life, and I've seen it. Seen or not, there's a simple analogy between and . Going into

- is better, it makes more sense. I don't think there is anyone who has taken upper division undergraduate or graduate level math or physics courses who hasn't seen this notation. Though, that's far from a good argument for why this notation should be used. Chris Ferri 06:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

- I do not think sense can be meaningfully quantified. That said, means "the integral with respect to dx of f(x)" where means "The integral of f(x) with respect to dx". They mean the same to someone that understands them both and the notation suggests possible variations, but... I am not sure that concepts of "sense" can even be partially ordered without contradicting other people's concepts of what does and does not make sense. --Rdm 16:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

## Complex field[edit]

Actually Gamma is defined on complex numbers. Is the task about its real part only? --Dmitry-kazakov 22:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

- Yes. Gamma can be defined on complex field, but the same works for real numbers (it is the opposite). The task asks only for the
*real*one. --ShinTakezou 11:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

## bigmath template[edit]

Does anybody know if the **bigmath** template is supposed to work here on Rosetta Code? -- Gerard Schildberger 07:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

## All formulae rendered invisible to many browsers by cosmetic edits[edit]

Cosmetic edits made to the task page on May 1 2016, including the injection of spaces around expressions in <math> tags, have left all of the formulae completely invisible to all browsers which display the graphic file version of formulae rather than processing the MathML (this is, in fact, the majority of browsers). The MediaWiki processor does not currently expect such spaces, and generates syntactically ill-formed HTML if they are introduced. Other aspects of these cosmetic edits may further compound the problem. Hout (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)