Talk:Gamma function: Difference between revisions
Repaired by Tikkanz 25 September 2016.
(Integrals: no need for controversy here) |
(Repaired by Tikkanz 25 September 2016.) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 13:
Actually Gamma is defined on complex numbers. Is the task about its real part only? --[[User:Dmitry-kazakov|Dmitry-kazakov]] 22:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
: Yes. Gamma can be defined on complex field, but the same works for real numbers (it is the opposite). The task asks only for the ''real'' one. --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 11:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
==bigmath template==
Does anybody know if the '''bigmath''' template is supposed to work here on Rosetta Code? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 07:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
==All formulae rendered invisible to many browsers by cosmetic edits==
Cosmetic edits made to the task page on May 1 2016, including the injection of spaces around expressions in <math> tags, have left all of the formulae completely invisible to all browsers which display the graphic file version of formulae rather than processing the MathML (this is, in fact, the majority of browsers). The MediaWiki processor does not currently expect such spaces, and generates syntactically ill-formed HTML if they are introduced. Other aspects of these cosmetic edits may further compound the problem. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 17:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
:: Repaired by [[User:Tikkanz|Tikkanz]] 25 September 2016 – Thank you ! [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 11:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
| |||