|Polynomial has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Mathematics. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|Text from this version of Polynomial was copied or moved into Properties of polynomial roots with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.|
|WikiProject Mathematics||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7|
|Threads older than 3 months may be archived by.|
|The content of Polynomial expression was merged into Polynomial on Nov 6, 2014. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
D. Lazard Operators Questions
Dr. Lazard: In working on a polynomial computing article I was shocked to find there also is no article or section on Polynomial operators! As I'm sure you know, many researchers and students, in structuring or working on linear equations and nonlinear systems, fail to notice the underlying polynomial nature of the problems. Multivariate polynomial operators are very important in polynomial computing, special functions, numerical methods and other algorithms for CAS, but I think they might be less known when seen only as a footnote to tough nonlinear systems or even linear equations, which of course are actually a subset of PO's. Do you think an article or at least a section is warranted? Recent work also is applying sytems of PO's to Latin squares for new approaches to research design methodology (as a statistical generality / approach). Pdecalculus (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks to db for comment on being careful of techniques. I've been zinged before on articles for giving technique instead of theory because there is a wiki caveat against "how to's" I guess. Because of this I'm shy about applications, but have combed a bunch of them on the site looking for (not totally how to) connections between polys, computing and linear algebra, with a view toward perhaps compiling a list of polynomial operators if not an article. These include but are not limited to related articles on linear algebra, polynomial algorithm generation, functional methods and shift operators, signal processing, of course numerical LA, Bezoutian and Hankel forms (eg. what wiki would call polynomial stability testing ala Bézout matrix or Hankel matrix-- although even the ortho poly section there is incomplete), control theory, etc. On the current wiki, the relevant operators are scattered thoughout the site, some with individual articles, others buried "as" an application. I don't know the site rules enough to know if a comprehensive article explaining them, or a list tying them to polynomial computing and algos is warranted, and I don't want to spend a week writing it if it's just going to be removed. I don't mind it being heavily edited, but removal just kills the idea under the rubric it's covered elsewhere, which is true, but you need a trail of bread crumbs to find it!Pdecalculus (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Forum update db: I'm cracking up at your idea that a list obviates the covered elsewhere argument because, by nature, a list IS what's "covered elsewhere." If other editors agree, maybe I'll start there! And thanks for the encouragement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdecalculus (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Calc: thanks! I've moved my operator efforts to Operator (mathematics) which had ZERO references or cites, and no mention of polynomials. It's pretty much an orphan.Pdecalculus (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Section Polynomial equations
At present, this section has two subsections. Allegedly, the division between the subsections is between introductory material and material on solving polynomial equations. In fact, both sections contain definitions of polynomial equations and both sections contain material on solutions of polynomial equations, but the notation, style, level, etc. is completely different between the two sections. (In particular, the first section is much more approachable and does not introduce unnecessary subtleties like the difference between a polynomial and its associated function.) I tentatively propose to rewrite this section to remove redundancy; I will probably aim for a level closer to the level of the first, smaller, subsection. What do others think? --JBL (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a term mentioned in some good treatments of polynomials yet it doesn't seem to be mentioned on wikipedia. Would it be appropriate to mention it on this page? If so, how should it be incorporated?
Polynomial Calculator External Link
Thanks for the explanation. Those software are kind of charity provided for free usage of public. I believed could be helpful promoting them in a convenient place frequented by relevant pupils and scholars. I couldn't find any other way.
Therefore I insist putting it here improves useability of wikipwdia entry.
- The explanation referred to in the preceding post is here, and concern the inclusion of this external link by this and this edit. I have reverted these edits, as, IMO, they do not satisfy the requirements for an external link. Other opinions are welcome. D.Lazard (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with D. Lazard. --JBL (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sirs, it is similar to Derek's Virtual Slide Rule Gallery link that I found on Wikipedia Slide Rule page. Were not that link on Wikipedia I never could know such a thing should exist by software. That slide rule is in java script codes. The Dysprosium Polynomial Calculator Software is in Java.126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with D. Lazard. --JBL (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Merged from Talk:Polynomial expression
Examples? Tutorial? Explanation to general audience?
So many of these science, tech, and math (especially math) articles are written exclusively to an audience that already knows the material – people who don't need the article in the first place. In order to be truly useful wikipedia must be more than an archive of compressed insider information. I am more and more of the opinion that this problem is (at least partially) rooted in the actual editing environment (the editing interface) which feels custom built to exclusively filter for a particular class of computer nerd, a class of people who are notoriously uninterested in teaching or of expending any effort to make technical information cognitively available to non-nerds. This filter excludes the very category of potential contributors that could transform wikipedia from an archive of coded insider information - and into a true information transference medium. The entreaty, "Did you know that you can edit this page?" isn't honest. Only those with HTML editing experience will be comfortable contributing within the wikipedia page editing environment. This is either a gross oversight (highly unlikely), or a persistently and aggressively arrogant form of direct and purposeful filtering of potential contributors. Feels for all the world like social engineering gone terribly wrong (is there some other way for social engineering to go?). Change the interface to a simple and direct WYSIWYG content editor and watch as wikipedia content becomes friendlier and more instructive.
Note: I realize that much work has been done to make the wikipedia editing and contribution environment more "humane", but the legacy of nerd-facing tools and attitude presents a considerable wall to overcome. Wikipedia fights an uphill battle to attract and keep the non-nerd contributor. The overall look and feel of the wikipedia interface seems very much more an attribute of the underlying page description protocol and very much less an attribute of the purpose - that of making it intuitive and slippery smooth for ANYONE to contribute and edit content.
While I think there are some valid points in your dissertation, it is not part of a discussion about Polynomial Expressions. You would probably get a larger audience and some support if you considered a different location. Les Hayden (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)