Talk:Integral: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Catherine Woodgold ("size" is not necessarily better than "totality".) |
imported>Catherine Woodgold (attempts to find better wording) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
"Totality" might be better because integrals also describe such concepts as mass. But it's really hard to come up with a formulation that is both easy to grasp and accurate. [[User:Fredrik Johansson|Fredrik Johansson]] 13:54, 29 April 2007 (CDT) | "Totality" might be better because integrals also describe such concepts as mass. But it's really hard to come up with a formulation that is both easy to grasp and accurate. [[User:Fredrik Johansson|Fredrik Johansson]] 13:54, 29 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
:I agree. "size" is not necessarily the best. Change it back to "totality" if you like. There may be something better. "Extent in space" doesn't cover all cases, either: one might want to integrate prices or interest rates or temperatures or something else, but since it says "intuitively" I think "extent in space" is good enough for that part -- it helps the reader get an image in their mind. I'll try to think of other words. --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 14:03, 29 April 2007 (CDT) | :I agree. "size" is not necessarily the best. Change it back to "totality" if you like. There may be something better. "Extent in space" doesn't cover all cases, either: one might want to integrate prices or interest rates or temperatures or something else, but since it says "intuitively" I think "extent in space" is good enough for that part -- it helps the reader get an image in their mind. I'll try to think of other words. --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 14:03, 29 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
:''"Intuitively, we can think of an integral as a measure of the totality of an object with an extent in space. "'' | |||
:''"... as a measure of the totality of some aspect, such as area or volume, of an object with an extent in space."'' | |||
:''"... as a measure of some additive quality of an object."'' | |||
:''"... as a measure of qualities such as area or volume, of the type whose values add when two objects are joined into a larger object."'' | |||
:''"... as a measure of such qualities as area and volume."'' | |||
:''"... as a way of extending the definition and measurement of area and volume to curved objects."'' | |||
:OK, I give up: leave it as "totality". I changed it back to the original. --[[User:Catherine Woodgold|Catherine Woodgold]] 18:35, 29 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 18:35, 29 April 2007
Totality vs size
"Totality" might be better because integrals also describe such concepts as mass. But it's really hard to come up with a formulation that is both easy to grasp and accurate. Fredrik Johansson 13:54, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
- I agree. "size" is not necessarily the best. Change it back to "totality" if you like. There may be something better. "Extent in space" doesn't cover all cases, either: one might want to integrate prices or interest rates or temperatures or something else, but since it says "intuitively" I think "extent in space" is good enough for that part -- it helps the reader get an image in their mind. I'll try to think of other words. --Catherine Woodgold 14:03, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
- "Intuitively, we can think of an integral as a measure of the totality of an object with an extent in space. "
- "... as a measure of the totality of some aspect, such as area or volume, of an object with an extent in space."
- "... as a measure of some additive quality of an object."
- "... as a measure of qualities such as area or volume, of the type whose values add when two objects are joined into a larger object."
- "... as a measure of such qualities as area and volume."
- "... as a way of extending the definition and measurement of area and volume to curved objects."
- OK, I give up: leave it as "totality". I changed it back to the original. --Catherine Woodgold 18:35, 29 April 2007 (CDT)