Talk:Chain Rule

Revision as of 00:05, 4 July 2006 by DVO (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)

As a matter of it really such a bad thing to have an informal style of writing that uses the first person? My favorite physics/math authors---the physicists Richard Feynman and David Griffiths, the mathematician Gilbert Strang---often use an informal style of writing, including use of the first person. I have often found that an informal style of writing helps make things much more clear; in fact I think that most math writing is too formal (not too rigorous, just too formal).

Now, I'm sure that my specific way of explaining things and wording things in this article could be much improved upon (and I'd be glad to see someone do it), but as a general principle, are we trying to avoid informal writing at the AoPS Wiki? In my mind, this isn't a traditional encyclopedia... I kind of like an informal style when it comes to explaining math. --DVO 00:05, 4 July 2006 (EDT)

Invalid username
Login to AoPS