- Home
- Get A Printable Dictionary
- Search Best Words
- Recent Changes
- How You Can Help
- valsi - All
- valsi - Preferred Only
- natlang - All
- natlang - Preferred Only
- Languages
- XML Export
- user Listing
- Report Bugs
- Utilities
- Status
- Help
- Admin Request
- Create Account
|
Discussion of "integrale"
Comment #1:
Notes
|
Curtis W Franks (Tue Oct 6 22:35:58 2015)
|
1) x2 must be a function. Despite being denoted a "f(x)", it really should only ever be "f". 2) The measure should be specified as x3. 3) The set over which the integral is being performed should be specified as x4. It might be beneficial to distinguish between antidifferentiation/indefinite-integration and definite-integration; my proposals are mostly based on the interpretation of this word being for definite-integration. It might be advisable to either define a toggling terbri or separate these words completely, since they are really sort of separate (definite integrals happen to be equal to the difference of antiderivatives, but that is a theorem rather than a definition; having separate words is my preference).
|
-
Comment #2:
Re: Notes
|
gleki (Wed Oct 7 06:35:15 2015)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > 1) x2 must be a function. Despite being denoted a "f(x)", it really should > only ever be "f". > 2) The measure should be specified as x3. > 3) The set over which the integral is being performed should be specified
> as x4.
Can't we just specify it within place structure of fancu whichwould take integrale2?
> It might be beneficial to distinguish between > antidifferentiation/indefinite-integration and definite-integration; my > proposals are mostly based on the interpretation of this word being for > definite-integration. It might be advisable to either define a toggling > terbri or separate these words completely, since they are really sort of > separate (definite integrals happen to be equal to the difference of > antiderivatives, but that is a theorem rather than a definition; having > separate words is my preference).
Even CLL predicts that integrale will eventually be split.
|
-
Comment #3:
Re: Notes
|
Curtis W Franks (Wed Oct 7 17:20:36 2015)
|
gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > 1) x2 must be a function. Despite being denoted a "f(x)", it really > should > > only ever be "f". > > 2) The measure should be specified as x3. > > 3) The set over which the integral is being performed should be specified > > > as x4. > > Can't we just specify it within place structure of fancu whichwould take > integrale2? >
Nope. They are completely independent. Convention/"reason" might indicate the most probable measure, but that is the purpose of having the terbri and filling it explicitly or otherwise with zo'o; in the end, you still need the terbri.
> > It might be beneficial to distinguish between > > antidifferentiation/indefinite-integration and definite-integration; my
> > proposals are mostly based on the interpretation of this word being for
> > definite-integration. It might be advisable to either define a toggling
> > terbri or separate these words completely, since they are really sort of > > separate (definite integrals happen to be equal to the difference of > > antiderivatives, but that is a theorem rather than a definition; having
> > separate words is my preference). > > Even CLL predicts that integrale will eventually be split.
|
-
|
|
|
|