Difference between revisions of "Talk:Chain Rule"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
It is a great article for those already familiar with calculus, and I wouldn't want it to be heavily rewritten, but an introductory section with much lighter notation would make a big difference. Great work so far.--[[User:MCrawford|MCrawford]] 13:16, 21 June 2006 (EDT) | It is a great article for those already familiar with calculus, and I wouldn't want it to be heavily rewritten, but an introductory section with much lighter notation would make a big difference. Great work so far.--[[User:MCrawford|MCrawford]] 13:16, 21 June 2006 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | You'll also want to add the Leibniz notation form of the chain rule.[[User:Joml88|Joe]] 08:48, 22 June 2006 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 08:48, 22 June 2006
Readability? I've taken calculus 1, and I can barely decipher the Chain Rule out of that. Maybe have a "formal" definition and then an informal definition? The page looks a bit imposing to those who don't tknow it that well... --IntrepidMath 10:39, 21 June 2006 (EDT)
Hmm, okay, thanks for the input. Of course, feel free to make drastic changes.--DVO 12:55, 21 June 2006 (EDT)
It is a great article for those already familiar with calculus, and I wouldn't want it to be heavily rewritten, but an introductory section with much lighter notation would make a big difference. Great work so far.--MCrawford 13:16, 21 June 2006 (EDT)
You'll also want to add the Leibniz notation form of the chain rule.Joe 08:48, 22 June 2006 (EDT)
