Jump to content

Talk:Functional (mathematics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 91.153.156.36 (talk) at 21:28, 7 November 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has been spawned from the article functional

Ae-a 20:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Examples of integral as functional

The example fails to mention that the integral is a definite integral.




Comment

I always thought the "Functional" in "Functional Equation" was an adjective meaning having to do with functions, rather than the noun "functional" of this article. I am especially confused, since the Cauchy equation example looks at the function evaluated at different points, rather than an overall identity at all points (like y'+y^2=0, for instance).

--Baterista 08:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...the integrand in Calculus of Variations is really a functional form, not a functional. The functional talked about here is the integral to be minimized/maximized.

The tone of this article

I noted that this article is exceptionally clear, considering myself to the very core of the target audience. So please if you try to edit the article into a more professional, exact, encyclopedic form, do not destroy the understandability.

Generally in Wikipedia I find many of the mathematics / physics articles very professional looking, but completely useless because they quite mercilessly use words that are even more incomprehensible than the article's main word.

Complex things may be made easier by adding examples. Wikipedia does not need the conciseness of a traditional papery encyclopedia.

193.110.109.30 13:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)ETa[reply]

Yes, I agree with 193.110.109.30. In fact, I flipped over to the discussion on this page just to see if anyone had remarked on this very thing. Also agree with the "professional but useless" observation, in connection with the many dozens of math-related pages recently browsed.

68.7.44.49 10:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an applied mathematician I do not understand what is wrong with this entry. It is informative and goes straight to the point. Why does it need editing???

87.80.62.71 19:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an unapplied philosopher (ie layman) I also wondered why the tone-tag. I only came here to see if there was argument for the tag; there isn't. As a semi-experienced 'pedia editor, I'm simply removing said tag.Eaglizard 17:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]