Talk:Integral: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Fredrik Johansson No edit summary |
imported>Catherine Woodgold ("size" is not necessarily better than "totality".) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Totality vs size== | ==Totality vs size== | ||
"Totality" might be better because integrals also describe such concepts as mass. But it's really hard to come up with a formulation that is both easy to grasp and accurate. [[User:Fredrik Johansson|Fredrik Johansson]] 13:54, 29 April 2007 (CDT) | "Totality" might be better because integrals also describe such concepts as mass. But it's really hard to come up with a formulation that is both easy to grasp and accurate. [[User:Fredrik Johansson|Fredrik Johansson]] 13:54, 29 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
:I agree. "size" is not necessarily the best. Change it back to "totality" if you like. There may be something better. "Extent in space" doesn't cover all cases, either: one might want to integrate prices or interest rates or temperatures or something else, but since it says "intuitively" I think "extent in space" is good enough for that part -- it helps the reader get an image in their mind. I'll try to think of other words. --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 14:03, 29 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 14:03, 29 April 2007
Totality vs size
"Totality" might be better because integrals also describe such concepts as mass. But it's really hard to come up with a formulation that is both easy to grasp and accurate. Fredrik Johansson 13:54, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
- I agree. "size" is not necessarily the best. Change it back to "totality" if you like. There may be something better. "Extent in space" doesn't cover all cases, either: one might want to integrate prices or interest rates or temperatures or something else, but since it says "intuitively" I think "extent in space" is good enough for that part -- it helps the reader get an image in their mind. I'll try to think of other words. --Catherine Woodgold 14:03, 29 April 2007 (CDT)