Difference between revisions of "Talk:Complex number"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
An article like this is going to be read by a lot of 12 and 13 year olds. It shouldn't start with notation as heavy as what's being used. That notation should be introduced in an intermediate section, though the introductory section will probably be fairly short.--[[User:MCrawford|MCrawford]] 19:09, 22 June 2006 (EDT) | An article like this is going to be read by a lot of 12 and 13 year olds. It shouldn't start with notation as heavy as what's being used. That notation should be introduced in an intermediate section, though the introductory section will probably be fairly short.--[[User:MCrawford|MCrawford]] 19:09, 22 June 2006 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I've seen a number of articles that involve or reference square roots and complex numbers. None of them have done a good job of explaining the notion of multiple roots, but this is obviously very important. Thoughts?--[[User:JBL|JBL]] 10:01, 9 July 2006 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 10:01, 9 July 2006
An article like this is going to be read by a lot of 12 and 13 year olds. It shouldn't start with notation as heavy as what's being used. That notation should be introduced in an intermediate section, though the introductory section will probably be fairly short.--MCrawford 19:09, 22 June 2006 (EDT)
I've seen a number of articles that involve or reference square roots and complex numbers. None of them have done a good job of explaining the notion of multiple roots, but this is obviously very important. Thoughts?--JBL 10:01, 9 July 2006 (EDT)
