Content deleted Content added
m respoked a mispoke |
Kevin Baas (talk | contribs) resp. to hawthorne |
||
Line 29:
:Forthese reasons I would prefer to discuss which aspects of the old page you want preserved and talk about reintroducing just those elements.
:[[user:hawthorn|hawthorn]]
::In respone to your points:
::*Examples of the derivatives of inverse functions were under development(by pizza), and there was a perfect spot for them at the bottom. Thank you for making examples. These are perfect for this application.
::*the advantage of two "proofs" is obvious. "your opinion" is quite vague, and to use the word "flawed" is inappropriate, being that they are mathematically correct (hence you said "my opinion"). Furthermore, the first "proof" is geometrically clear and intuitive. How is that a flaw?
::*"some fallacies", is quite a politically tainted expression. To say that it is fallacious is misleading. The difference between continuous and differentiable, and differentiable, is slight, especially given the fact that were a function is not continuous, it is not differentiable.(however, the '''converse''' does not always hold) In any case, this is quite a small point, which could be easily 'tweaked' by a very very minor correction.
::On the point of the page title: the title should then be "differentation of inverse functions", rather than the ambigious title. But let's stop a moment here, could the two benefit from being combined into one page, or would they be better off separate? I would argue that the concepts are simple and belong together, if they only want to learn about inverse functions, they can stop at half the page. If they only want to know about differentation thereof, they can skip the first half, and they have a reference with a smooth transition, so that the approach is contextualized. Similarily, the approach from inverse->diff is straightforward. Besides, one should generally '''introduce''' a topic before they discuss it.
::[[User:Kevin_baas]] 2003.06.28
| |||