Difference between revisions of "Talk:Residue calculus"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
"Some mathematicians reject the method of residue calculus, as it does not rely on elementary proofs." | "Some mathematicians reject the method of residue calculus, as it does not rely on elementary proofs." | ||
| − | Is this actually true? Perhaps there are a few obscure mathematicians somewhere with such a view, but this sentence indicates that residue calculus is not generally accepted. That's just not accurate. | + | Is this actually true? Perhaps there are a few obscure mathematicians somewhere with such a view, but this sentence indicates that residue calculus is not generally accepted. That's just not accurate. <small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Jlezzy|Jlezzy]] [[User talk:Jlezzy|(talk)]]</small> |
| − | : Some editors at this wiki seem to have an irrational fear of complex numbers. Dunno why, and I'm not sure that there's a source for these claims. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 23: | + | : Some editors at this wiki seem to have an irrational fear of complex numbers. Dunno why, and I'm not sure that there's a source for these claims. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 23:53, 3 January 2009 (EST) |
Revision as of 04:53, January 4, 2009
"Some mathematicians reject the method of residue calculus, as it does not rely on elementary proofs."
Is this actually true? Perhaps there are a few obscure mathematicians somewhere with such a view, but this sentence indicates that residue calculus is not generally accepted. That's just not accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jlezzy (talk)
- Some editors at this wiki seem to have an irrational fear of complex numbers. Dunno why, and I'm not sure that there's a source for these claims. --KevinS 23:53, 3 January 2009 (EST)