Talk:Gamma function: Difference between revisions

→‎Integrals: My two cents
(→‎Complex field: only real field asked)
(→‎Integrals: My two cents)
Line 5:
 
:: I did my math in my life, and I've seen it. Seen or not, there's a simple analogy between <math>\textstyle\frac{d}{dx}</math> and <math>\textstyle\int dx</math>. Going into ''definite thing'', there's no a rule stating that <math>\textstyle\int_{x_0}^{x_1} dx f(x)</math> can't mean the integral of f(x) computed between x<sub>0</sub> and x<sub>1</sub>; the analogy with derivative could be <math>\textstyle\left(\frac{d}{dx}f(x)\right)_{x=x_0}</math> (or any of the form you prefer to say the derivative of f(x) computed in x<sub>0</sub>); no need for the integral to put limits "outside" the "operator boundary" like your attempt <math>\textstyle\left.\int f\right|_a^b</math>. More close analogy would be with the sum <math>\textstyle\sum_{i=1}^{N} f(x_i)</math> (the integral sign is nothing but an S). But this discussion is OT for RC. Mine was not an error, I will write it the same way for other "math" tasks; no need to ''fix'' it. --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 11:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 
:::<math>\int dx\; f(x)</math> is better, it makes more sense. I don't think there is anyone who has taken upper division undergraduate or graduate level math or physics courses who hasn't seen this notation. Though, that's far from a good argument for why this notation should be used. [[User:Cferri|Chris Ferri]] 06:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 
==Complex field==
Anonymous user