Explanation of Changes made to calculus with polynomials by hawthorn
1. Deleted the following as unneccessary padding
- There are only 2 basic things you need to know how to differentiate polynomials, and how to integrate them.
2. Polynomials do not include negative exponents. It is better to keep to the point and deal with other exponents in a generalisation section at the end. Note that only the positive exponent case was proved anyway.
3. Section headed differentiation. This section was almost all padding. Deleted entire section.
4. Section headed Binomial Expansion was not about the binomial expansion at all. Rather it was a proof of the derivative formula for xr. It was in fact completely redundant as a much more complete and all around better proof of the same fact appears in the next section. Deleted entire section.
5. Section headed Linear Transformation contained in fact a proof of the derivative formula for polynomials. Title was inappropriate and redundant - deleted it. Cleaned up language linking the two sections of the proof. Changed notation to make it consistent throughout.
6. Added generalisations section commenting on the derivative for other exponents (but not including a proof) in order to ensure no overall loss of information for the page.
The result is an entry which has
- the same informational content
- is half the length
- avoids repetition
- avoids strange unrelated headings
- is notationally consistent
- has a shorter and more concise proof
- is clearly addressed to polynomials
Hi, note the changes I made to your Levi stub. It helps to check the "What links here". Cheers, -- Infrogmation 21:49 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Symphony? What symphony? -- Oliver P. 18:25 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I really like your parsec diagram. :) -- Oliver P. 05:21 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Hi. About image:parsec.jpg.
Diagrams should really be in .png format.The file size will be smaller and the lines will be sharp without all that fuzzy edges.See Wikipedia:How to keep image file sizes as small as possible for more details. Theresa knott 10:17 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
What value is there in removing links merely because you determine that they are "silly"? If you don't like the links, then turn them off in your browser. Pizza Puzzle
- I believe in making relevant links. So, in an article on Muhammed Ali Jinnah, linking Pakistan, Mohandas Gandhi, or Muslim League all are perfectly sensible, indeed, important to link to. But linking daughter is extremely confusing, because it leads the reader to believe that there is some special link to the concept of "daughter" from Jinnah. When I first saw it, I assumed it was a link to Jinnah's daughter herself. Merely linking every word we have an article for dilutes the meanings of the links. DanKeshet 15:19 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Also, it's very important when you link to link to a relevant concept, for example, on the Abu Mazen page, we had a link to pressure, which gives a definition of pressure in the domain of chemistry/physics, not pressure in the domain of politics. When you make links, it's important they go where the reader would expect them to.
- Also, besides the link thing, I'm happy to see you're working on many articles I care about, including Jinnah and Abu Mazen and Chomsky,etc. Cheers, DanKeshet
How can I turn off the excessive links without turning off the useful ones? Evercat 19:47 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Please use the preview feature before saving an edit. Hundreds of small edits clutter our history and the recent changes page. --Eloquence 20:46 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I must note that I do have a strong suspicion that you are yet another incarnation of Lir, but if so, you're getting pretty good at hiding it. Not good enough to change your bad habits, though. --Eloquence 00:35 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Message for you on User talk:Tim Starling. And to Eloquence I would say: a reformed Lir is as good as no Lir at all. Maybe even better. Pizza Puzzle has made lots of good contributions, and if s/he's got into any fights on talk pages, I haven't seen them. -- Tim Starling 03:12 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
This is the first mention I have heard of Pizza Puzzle being Lir. To be honest, PP has in my view generally been constructive. If it is Adam, I would urge him to speak to Jimbo and get re-admitted through unbanning, especially as he did promise Jimbo that there would be no more visitations from his 'multiple identities'. But even if PP is Lir (and I have seen no evidence to suggest so) I think on the basis of behaviour so far, we should give him the benefit of the doubt. I certainly have had no problems with PP (apart from calling me a George Bush supporter. That's a bit like calling Billy Graham a catholic! Bush in reality makes my skin crawl!). I would love to see a constructive Adam rather than the destructive version we have seen in his various versions. Whether PP is or is not Adam, they have done good work and should be allowed to prove themselves. But any return to the behaviour of Adam in his past identities would of course lead to an immediate re-ban and the deletion of all their contributions. But lets not rush to judgment on the basis of the non-use of the preview button. I didn't know how to use it when I joined first and made multiple saves. So far PP (whomever they are) is doing a good job and should be allowed to continue in that vein. FearÉIREANN 03:28 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Heh, what a lot of attention. Pizza Puzzle
In reply to PP's comment on my talk page: you have to proof read. That means reading your contribution slowly and carefully. Do it twice if you have to. Then click save and go do something else. Come back to it after at least a few hours -- you'll be more able to spot mistakes then. -- Tim Starling 03:44 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Adam is getting treatment (still continuing, I hope). Please be compassionate and understanding. Adam has a great stigma attached to him here, I hope Wikipedians can be open-minded. -- Tim Starling 04:12 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- re: "getting treatment" link - and people wonder why I'm anti-psychiatry... Martin 15:56 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Except for the one shrink with the circular logic, it sounds like more of a problem with insurance than with psychiatry. Koyaanis Qatsi 16:01 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation(s) (I'll list more as I see them): Oscar Gonzales, Pieljekaise Tresticklan nationalpark -- Notheruser 18:23 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)