Talk:Derivative

GA Reassessment

Derivative

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Massive effort from Dedhert.Jr and XOR'easter to bring this article up to scratch. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Significant portions, including whole sections and subsections, of this 2007 listing are missing inline citations; the article thus does not meet GA criterion 2b). If someone has access to the books of the biblography section and the requisite knowledge, this is just a matter of finding pages, to my inexpert mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Just as I predicted it. The article has some unsourced paragraphs during I was adding the citations. Not to mention, they are also some parts that is not understandable per criterion 1a, for example the partial derivative part. Also, the history section, to me, is somewhat not related, as it mentions the history of how the calculus was made; maybe this could be expanded or merge to any other sections, or just delete it literally? I do think there are lot of problems in this article. Pinging more users: @Jacobolus, @David Eppstein, @XOR'easter, @D.Lazard for more comments???? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This article would benefit significantly from an effort to add a gentler informal or semi-formal description at the top, with less jargon, more pictures, and accessible to a wider audience. (A better history section would also be nice.) Other than that, this article seems mostly fine, and this reassessment is IMO a waste of time. Please feel free to add more specific citations if you want. All of this material is easily verifiable and discussed extensively in the cited references. –jacobolus (t) 20:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify jacobolus, are you saying that you feel this article meets the GA criteria, or that there is no need for this article to meet the GA criteria and discussing whether it should is a waste of time? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying this article seems like a fine Wikipedia article. Like most of them, it could use additional work. Arguing about whether it ticks off some boxes on a made up checklist (a poor proxy for article quality) is a total waste of time. Addressing the specific criticisms raised here isn't going to make the article substantively better, and there are many more valuable improvements that could be made (but also don't have to be; as I said it's a fine article). Knock yourself out though. –jacobolus (t) 02:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The second option, then. Thanks for your quick response. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

More discussion

@AirshipJungleman29, @Jacobolus: the discussion of improvement may be found in many places: see at my talk and the talk page of the article Derivative. In my talk page, me and XOR'easter discussed the improvement in the section of definition. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to you and to XOR for working on the article. I hope the article will be improved, to the benefit of the readers. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Some questions from me regarding the improvement of this article:

• I'm looking for the possibility of a scenario about the notation part: should this section mention after the higher derivative? In my opinion, the notation describes many different notations of differentiation, including the high order. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Also, I wonder why its applications remain stuck at the Differential calculus#Applications. Is it possible to write them down in this article, instead? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove protection

There id no need for this article to be protected. 107.119.57.63 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• is

107.119.57.63 (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The article's edit history shows the data of edit-warring by some IPs and users. That is why the article is protected. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Derivative can't be deceptive

@D.Lazard I had just think through and finally came to some understanding on what derivative can be. And what for Calculus is used in general. First of all I don't understand why this Article is protected by by @Materialscientist. I don't understand the real potential that lies behind the wall, I mean the conception what Wikipedia has in fact and by the fact.

@D.Lazard / @Materialscientist - When I say the circle, for πr² - 2πr is the derivative. But by the view point on the same plane, the plane I am considering Rectangle, when I say Rectangle it is that I am considering a Radical Approach, that's the approach been followed here, as per your CEO & Founder - Jimmy Wales. More than that, I have good faith and I rely on anything that is Rectangle not a Square so, the science can endure over there. So, by viewpoint from the same plane where circle is depicted I could only see at the max of half part of the circle, so the actual derivative is πr as the line length of what it is πr

All the tangents will have the 90^° angle with the line drawn from the point where tangent touches the touch-point on the circle and the line drawn from it to the circle's center point ( distance - r ), if I am right.

Point whether it is exterior or interior by which we define everything else in the derivative and concerned limits by the fact.

Whenever there is a Semi-Protected Edit, having the necessary talk is required,- the real talk, the discussion

As per my conclusion whatever you do as derivative is in the range of +πr to -πr. That's an idea, what do you say D.Lazard.

And I am checking on one among the uncomputability problem - πθ uncomputability problem, in order to have some thoughts in mind.

Good day team!

—2405:201:D02B:60A3:3ACE:ACB4:8B25:6E59 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

When there is no Y axis as such, that's when the range is within +πr to -πr. See the quadrants well defined in Mathematics and in the same way f(x) as well. Your concerns are not major as such and it's simple that 2πr is perimeter of the circle and 4πr² is surface of the sphere.

Since the day one of universe, the problem is α β γ. Our LHC & it's researches will decide including everything else.

About point interior or exterior is just collateral. Linearity and it's abstraction gives the major salvation.

You worry about πθ uncomputability problem, there is other one as well so called Church Thesis - that's starts with capital Gamma - Γ and some notation.

Derivative is all about what we could touch, in the abstraction level [or] in the real physical level.

Thanks & Happy Writing.

—~2025-42941-70 (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article at least mention antiderivatives and the fundamental theorem of calculus?

It seems to me like a glaring oversight. –jacobolus (t) 15:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I added a few sentences. They probably need expansion/redoing. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Merge Differential calculus into this

Should the content of the article Differential calculus be merged into this, or perhaps Differential calculus be redirected to Derivative? Consensus is needed. Mechanikin (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

These are just opinions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We can't prove this because there are letters and not all numbers; these are just opinions on math and not facts. We should put this in the page somewhere. ~2026-48070-34 (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say, but it seems entirely unrelated to this article. –jacobolus (t) 15:44, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

This page is all opinions, not fact. ~2026-48092-54 (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.