Talk:Coefficient

Comment from 62.252.64.14
I dont understand this please can someone explain simpler? - Posted by 62.252.64.14 18:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) (moved here from article)

Are all coefficients unit-less?
All of the coefficients I can think of are unitless. Is this part of the definition of a coefficient when used in equations for physical systems? Are there exceptions? Or am I just wrong?


 * E_0 = m c^2.
 * the proportionality coefficient between rest energy and mass is c^2 which is not unitless. --MarSch 16:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the mathematical definition should imply that coefficients are unitless, however, the physical sciences have been using "coefficient" for factors that include dimensions for a long time, where "constant" or "factor" would be a more informative term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.199.33 (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

coefficient of a polynomial
"coefficients" of vectors are called coordinates. Perhaps we should convert this to a list of coefficients. --MarSch 16:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoa....
OK, I'm no math genius, and so this article makes NO SENSE whatsoever. Define it so that people who don't know what the word means can figure it out (they're the one's who want to know, after all). In $$4x$$, is the 4 the coefficient? If so, just say that. Please. Cut down on the confusion level. Twilight Realm 21:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

See Encarta's definition for an example of a good definition. After the summary, then you can go into the details. Twilight Realm 21:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. I just can't stand looking at this ****, so I'll change it. Why did nobody in almost 5 years time? Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I found out that until recently the lede was a lot better than what I just changed, I could have reverted a not-so-old edit. Anyway, what I wrote is not too far from what used to be there, maybe even a bit better. In any case please no not restore the nonsensical stuff about divisors and monomials, even if it should be in some reference. Marc van Leeuwen (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

MathML?
I guess the formulas should be converted to MathML some time. Just suggesting it here. (BTW, I agree with making the article summary a bit simpler) --Jeremy 00:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

translation-request
Can anyone read japanese version of this article? If one can read and think it is useful, then translate it, please. thank you.--218.251.73.134 07:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think anybody who understood this article wouldn't need to read it in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.140.253.42 (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to understand
I think anybody who understood this article wouldn't need to read it in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.140.253.42 (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for things to clarify

 * To my knowledge The therm "coefficients" is mainly used for a given set of base functions (such as x^0, x^1, ..., x^n) for the factors in front of them. The generalization "or any expression" makes it identical in meaning with "factor" which I do not think is widely used or helpful in any way.
 * The basis of function does not need to be x^n AFAIK but can also be sin(nx+b)/cos(nx+b)/e^nx/any base of a vector space or such but the base functions/vectors are not called "coefficients" (which is likely meant with "clearly distinguished from the other variables").
 * A general example for polynomials such as a_0+a_1*x+a_2*x^2+...+a_(n-1)*x^(n-1)+a_n*x^n with a_i being the coefficients to the polynomial basis x^i may help to understand what is meant in most of the cases.
 * I also think the coefficients should be independent of the variable in the functional basis (in my examples x).

I think addressing those points might help to make this article more telling but the rough understanding of the linear independent base of a space of functions/vectors may still get in the way for many to understand this. Florian Finke (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Intro vs description
I do not know how to flag this as an official "issue" with the article.

But I do think that the intro part should be cut much shorter, and the rest moved to a Description section. It is a pretty good and informative text as it is, but should be rearranged thus.

In particular, the term "leading coefficient" should have its own subsection, to enable proper links "directly" to this term from other Wiki pages. If that is done, it follows logically that "Specific cases" such as binominal coeffs etc, also moves into a subsection, for editorial reasons.

Speaking of specific classes of coeffiecients, I suppose there are many, and there should perhaps be a page that lists the most common ones. If there already is such a page, link to it under "See also". Or list a few of the most important ones one by one under See also. Such as binominal coeffs.

-- Anders Hallström --195.60.183.2 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of your remarks are valuable, but they require a rewrite of the article that is already implicitly asked by the tags.
 * However, I have fixed the links to leading coefficient by adding an anchor and redirecting to it. So the link will not be destroyed when, hopefully the article will be rewritten.
 * I'll update the tags and add the tag long lead. D.Lazard (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Verification issues?
BTW, this article is flagged for multiple issues about verification. Do these issues still stand? I am not qualified to do the judgement, but the article appears to have proper references. -- Anders Hallström --195.60.183.2 (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A "multiplicative factor"? But what is a factor?
So, "a coefficient is a multiplicative factor". This suggests the existence of at least two types of factors - one of them is multiplicative. But what is "factor" anyway? Do you mean a divisor? 85.193.244.74 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * In "multiplicative factor", the two words must not be read separately. For the moment, to understand the phrase, you have to look at the examples. I agree that this is confusing. I have tagged the article as confusing, since it is difficult to find a convenient formulation. D.Lazard (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Even if we treat the phrase as inseparable, the problem will not go away. We need a definition of a multiplicative factor unless this is a synonym of a "coefficient", but it does not seem to be the case. So, if a multiplicative factor represents a broader category, then there must be a multiplicative factor, that is not a coefficient. I think an example would help, of course, not here but in the definition of a multiplicative factor. Anyway, thank you for your explanation and good job :-) 85.193.244.74 (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's defined in multiplication. fgnievinski (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow indeed! Thank you :-) 85.193.244.74 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)