Talk:Reciprocal rule

Redirecting to chain rule

This isn't really a separate rule by any stretch; it's merely a special case of the power rule (using the chain rule if necessary), so I'm going to redirect to the article at Chain rule instead. I think Power rule might make a bit more sense, but the chain rule article has more information, especially about this specific case. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Deacon Vorbis: That does not make sense. The reciprocal rule admits a very simple proof; the chain rule does not. That it can be deduced from the power rule and the chain rule obscures the simplicity of its proof. And how do you prove the power rule for negative integer exponents without using the reciprocal rule? You can do it using a proof that the power rule works for all real exponents, which relies on the chain rule, but that also obscures the fact that the reciprocal rule is simple result with a simple proof with none of the depth of the chain rule. The solution is to re-write the reciprocal rule article to make this clear. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

. . . and now I've rewritten the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is my personal conviction to get rid as much as is possible of these damned rules like Triple product rule, quotient rule, reciprocal rule, and what not: let there be just atomic building blocks, sum rule, (emphasized) product rule, exponential rule and the chain rule. However, in WP, -maybe, I dot care how much- there seems to be a justified mission to report all of these "inventions" and "findings", establishing fancy rules, claimed to be worth memorizing (and of course testing). So for the time being, I support Michael Hardy's POV and oppose the thought of a redirect being sufficient for WP. Purgy (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]