User talk:MathTrain/sandbox

You clearly have put a lot of work and research into elaborating upon the history of NNC. This is written in a very legible and straightforward manner, and I think it will make an excellent wiki contribution. One of my notes was to link the key individuals (e.g. Robert Katz) if they have wiki pages. There are some redundancies in information, but because this is an encyclopedia page, I don't think it is of much concern. For the sentence in the 21st century section starting with "The paper had its intended effect...", I would cut "had its intended effect, as it was immediately referenced in the sentence before it, and the sentence would be stronger without it. Ellamarrero (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Your source list is robust, featuring books, journals, and websites. Even though it was not used, your history of non-Newtonian calculus section is clear, concise, and legible. As for the proper "History" section, you might want to move some of the first sentences outside of the subsections, but otherwise, it's intuitive and contains significant information. However, I'd suggest moving the subsections around to place the pre-20th century section prior to the 20th century section, as is more intuitive, and placing Robert Katz's remarks in another section, possibly following the 21st century section. You do a good job distinguishing between popular and professional applications of such concepts. You also do a good job going into enough detail that I'm not confused, but not so much that I'm lost. The prose is clean, with the possible exception of the phrase "and in this claim is not substantially disputed by researchers." Overall, however, the article is robust, containing a wide berth of information organized cleanly. Good work.

--JoFraDe (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Very good "history" of an interesting topic, I think the writing is quite clear and informative. I am just wondering the reason that you put the timeline to be 20th century->21st century->before 20th century. To me, a chronological timeline is more reasonable. And I understand that you probably want people to first know about it and then talk about its history prior to 20th century. But could you then do 21st century->20th century->pre-20th century? I am not sure if this is constructive advice. Fakeroute (talk) 5:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Historical omission

Apparently, the multiplicative integral is the Haar measure of the multiplicative group of the positive real numbers. As the concept of Haar measure (1933), is much older than multiplicative calculus, it must be cited in every article on multiplicative calculus, and not only in the history section. IMO, the inventors of multiplicative calculus have only reinvented the wheel. D.Lazard (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@D.Lazard: I completely agree they have merely reinvented the wheel mathematically speaking. The problem is I can find a lot of published sources which talk about its notability as a "new" idea, but none that refute it. In my opinion, discussing how it is equivalent to already-known ideas on the page would amount to violating WP:OR. Yet, I believe the concept is indeed notable enough to merit a page, since there are hundreds to thousands of pages of literature devoted to the subject (i.e. devoted to reinventing the wheel in this particular way) including books and journal articles. MathTrain (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)