Content deleted Content added
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{Maths rating}}. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: field. Tag: |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Mathematics|priority=low}}
}}
{{translated page|fr|Intégration des fonctions réciproques|version=99517229|insertversion=|section=}}
== AFC comments ==
Line 19 ⟶ 22:
This evidence suggests strongly that the author of the non-peer-reviewed Arxiv paper is the same person who created the Wikipedia article and cited the paper. [[Special:Contributions/24.50.177.199|24.50.177.199]] ([[User talk:24.50.177.199|talk]]) 05:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I concur that this is of questionable content, but for different reasons. If you spend some thought about the content of the theorem, you will realise that this is nothing other than the age old "Integration by Parts" theorem, known to the pioneers. So, the mathematicians involved have failed to realise the most basic connections within their own field, which is worrisome. However, I would prefer that the link between Integration by Parts theorem and inverse functions, and also product rule of differentiation, to be explicitly made clear, so that these confusions will stop happening. Also, this new viewpoint has already been fruitful, as it suggests to mathematicians to try working out the conditions for its validity. i.e. I question the claim of novelty, but grant them that it is original and useful and true. [[Special:Contributions/111.65.71.144|111.65.71.144]] ([[User talk:111.65.71.144|talk]]) 21:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
| |||