![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Brahmagupta interpolation formula was copied or moved into Brahmagupta#interpolation formula 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 as long as the latter page exists. |
The article says:
θ is self-explanatory, but what is Dp and what is h? Obviously the article needs to say what those are. And how is the quantity called r on the left side related to anything on the right side? It seems as if you'd have to be so confused in order to leave out things like that that it's hard to imagine how you could be able to write the formula at all. I don't know if I'll ever understand this kind of behavior. Michael Hardy 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The formula becomes a reasonable interpolation formula if one assumes that "r" is a transcription error for "Δ", with Δsin(Θ) =def sin(Θ + ΔΘ) - sin(Θ), and that h is the length of the intervals over which differences are being taken, with Dp =def sin(Θ + h) - sin(Θ) and Dp+1 =def sin(Θ + 2 h) - sin(Θ + h).
But we shouldn't have to guess. It would be worth checking the reference to see if its account is as incoherent as the article's currently is. If so, we need to find a better one.
—
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I checked out the book yesterday and will look closely. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Please. Look at my most recent edits. Your way of using various mathematical notations suffers from a number of weaknesses. In particular, you twice used a hyphen instead of a minus sign in non- TeX notation, you inexplicably ended the math environment and then immediately started it again, you wrote "\ +" instead of " + {}" in TeX, and you didn't use sufficient spacing in non-TeX notation. Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Even if the formula which is the subject of this article is sufficiently notable to justify a stand-alone article on it, it seems very likely that the article will never contain enough material to become anything more than a stub. On the other hand, it strongly satisfies two of the four criteria listed as being good reasons for merging one article into another in the Wikipedia help page on mergers. It also partially satisfies the fourth criterion, though not as strongly as it does the second and third.
Consequently, I propose that this article be merged into the
subsection on trigonometry in the article on Brahmagupta.
—
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
07:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Brahmagupta interpolation formula was copied or moved into Brahmagupta#interpolation formula 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 as long as the latter page exists. |
The article says:
θ is self-explanatory, but what is Dp and what is h? Obviously the article needs to say what those are. And how is the quantity called r on the left side related to anything on the right side? It seems as if you'd have to be so confused in order to leave out things like that that it's hard to imagine how you could be able to write the formula at all. I don't know if I'll ever understand this kind of behavior. Michael Hardy 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The formula becomes a reasonable interpolation formula if one assumes that "r" is a transcription error for "Δ", with Δsin(Θ) =def sin(Θ + ΔΘ) - sin(Θ), and that h is the length of the intervals over which differences are being taken, with Dp =def sin(Θ + h) - sin(Θ) and Dp+1 =def sin(Θ + 2 h) - sin(Θ + h).
But we shouldn't have to guess. It would be worth checking the reference to see if its account is as incoherent as the article's currently is. If so, we need to find a better one.
—
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I checked out the book yesterday and will look closely. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Please. Look at my most recent edits. Your way of using various mathematical notations suffers from a number of weaknesses. In particular, you twice used a hyphen instead of a minus sign in non- TeX notation, you inexplicably ended the math environment and then immediately started it again, you wrote "\ +" instead of " + {}" in TeX, and you didn't use sufficient spacing in non-TeX notation. Michael Hardy ( talk) 06:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Even if the formula which is the subject of this article is sufficiently notable to justify a stand-alone article on it, it seems very likely that the article will never contain enough material to become anything more than a stub. On the other hand, it strongly satisfies two of the four criteria listed as being good reasons for merging one article into another in the Wikipedia help page on mergers. It also partially satisfies the fourth criterion, though not as strongly as it does the second and third.
Consequently, I propose that this article be merged into the
subsection on trigonometry in the article on Brahmagupta.
—
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont)
07:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)