Talk:Quadratic integral

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
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.
Mathematics rating:
Stub Class
Low Importance
 Field:  Basics

As now written, this article appears to assume either that

  • the roots are real;

or that

  • there's no reason to comment on any technicalities arising from the "multiple-valued" nature of the logarithm function once complex numbers are admitted into this discussion.

Maybe I'll be back. Michael Hardy 00:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, an issue here. At the intended level, surely it's best to split into cases, according to the sign of the discriminant. Charles Matthews 10:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyright problem?[edit]

This article was listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems 23 Feb 2006 due to its resemblence to Mathworld's page. Obviously the equations can be expected to be similar, but the rest is too. For instance, the text part of the Wikipedia article now reads:

  In mathematics, a quadratic integral of the form
  may be computed by completing the square in the denominator.
  is the negative of the discriminant. When q < 0, then
  By use of partial fraction decomposition,

while the Mathworld article reads

  To compute an integral of the form
  complete the square in the denominator to obtain
  is the negative of the polynomial discriminant. If q<0, then
  Now use partial fraction decomposition, 

In the equations, both have the odd business of "defining" −A2 and then deriving A from it, and also the odd use of equivalence signs, particularly the use of two of them in the −A2 line.

The listing on Wikipedia:Copyright problems for a couple of weeks drew only this comment:

  • Is this really copyrightable? I mean, it's just math. If one were to write an article about the subject, wouldn't it basically just come out almost the same? howcheng {chat} 01:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On 10 March 2006, User:Quadell restored the text because "apparently not a copyright violation". I'm just noting this history here for future reference. -R. S. Shaw 03:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

notational conventions[edit]

Hasn't this article interchanged the conventional roles of a and c? Michael Hardy 18:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)