Talk:Y-intercept: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:54, 21 August 2013

Mathematics Stub‑class Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Untitled

Why Y why not Q?

Historical reasons. Back when "modern" algebraic symbolism was introduced in the 16th Century or so, "x" was chosen to represent the unknown variable. So "y", being the next letter, is naturally your second variable. Specifically in the case of "y-intercept", it's probably Descartes' fault. --Bth 15:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Root (mathematics)

Mentioning Root (mathematics) would be a great addition to the article. --Abdull 15:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formula

The formula for Y-Intercept would be a nice add-on —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ianboy13 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fixed redlink in article

In the last paragraph, the text I/V-characteristic linked to... nothing! So I fixed it, linked it to Current-voltage characteristic, and added an explanation of the use of I as a variable. Please discuss before making any reverts relating to this edit!

Thanks,

The Doctahedron, 02:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sounds more complex than it needs to be

This article reads like someone wanted to try to impress everyone. I remember seeing descriptions/definitions in textbooks less puffed up than this article. Did a lawyer write this?

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 [[User talk:68.173.113.106|The Doctahedron]], 02:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
+== sounds more complex than it needs to be ==
+This article reads like someone wanted to try to impress everyone.  I remember seeing descriptions/definitions in textbooks less puffed up than this article.  Did a lawyer write this?