Talk:Gamma function: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→Integrals: My two cents) |
(Integrals: no need for controversy here) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:::<math>\int dx\; f(x)</math> 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. [[User:Cferri|Chris Ferri]] 06:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
:::<math>\int dx\; f(x)</math> 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. [[User:Cferri|Chris Ferri]] 06:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::I do not think sense can be meaningfully quantified. That said, <math>\int dx\; f(x)</math> means "the integral with respect to dx of f(x)" where <math>\int f(x)dx</math> 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. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 16:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Complex field== |
==Complex field== |
||