Talk:Exponential response formula

Referencing and bare links
No, your changes have not resolved the issues complained about in the templates I applied.

1) You have one reference. There should be more. Your citation should include a page number and, if available, an ISBN or other specific identifier. These aren't absolutely required, but it's considered much better if they're there. In particular, there should be in-line citations.

2) In the external links section, it's good that you expanded them a bit, but they're still just bare links. Sometimes that's okay for external links, but the problem with bare links is that they don't leave any breadcrumbs for finding replacements if the current link happens to go bad for some reason.

But good improvements, nonetheless.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  00:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello jmcgnh, thank you for helping me to improve the article. Made few improvements Not sure you will be satisfied with external links. Don't know what other information could be added. Most external links, unlike references exists only online and don't have ISBN or something like that. Any idea how can we improve external links further? Wandalen (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Added pages, identifier( IMSCP-MD5-9ca77abee86dc4bbaef9e2d6b157eaa9 ) and other secondary information for the first reference. By the way the link claimed to be permanent/citable( no rot ).
 * Added one more reference with ISBN and pages.
 * Improved external links. Did my best to give more information about them in case some will rot.


 * Still no in-line citations.


 * I think we can accept that this formula exists, but for an encyclopedic article, I'd like to see more coverage of where it gets used, who developed it, and perhaps more about how it fits in with other aspects of systems of differential equations. (I'm somewhat math literate, but this is an area I know very little about, so pardon me for asking the article to explain things that are obvious to experts.)


 * I'm going to bring this article up in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to see if we can get some more expert attention brought to bear. One thing I'm unclear on is whether the example you've provided is appropriate within the overall goals of the project's style guidelines.


 * There are some copy edits to be made as well, which I may get a chance to do.  &mdash; jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  00:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jmcgnh. Understood. Will find time to make corresponding changes soon. Probably on the weekend. Wandalen (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Jmcgnh. Why my page was deleted? See nothing about ERF on the page on which redirection was made.

Wandalen (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Someone Izno did that. It seems he is a not mathematician. Don't understand what a point to do things like that without knowledge in the domain. Wandalen (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Will improve the article soon if it will survive attack of Izno. Want to be sure results of my work in safe before investing more days in that. I feel helpless. Wandalen (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge
There is less here than meets the eye. I would propose merging it into a new line in Ordinary differential equations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's Characteristic equation (calculus), with a few words added for the non-homogeneous case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Arthur. Thanks for getting interested. ERF is definitely not characteristic equation. ERF uses characteristic equation. I'll add more information. Wandalen (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Try a new paragraph in Linear differential equation, instead. That has two other solution methods for those equations.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice. Still not ERF. Did you write that? Wandalen (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What should be here (significantly less than what is here) should be there. This ERF is a solution method for (some) nonhomogeneous  linear differential equations with constant coefficients, and should be with other such methods.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm now satisfied I've got the merge target correct. See discussion at Talk:Linear differential equation.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Primary use?
A Google search for "exponential response function" finds two different concepts, and doesn't find this one (at least on the first two pages). Perhaps it is better known under another name? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good question. Doubt. This material is not part of high school program so it's not so famous. That's university material. Wandalen (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I cannot find evidence that it is known under that name. You have provided references which you claim support the material.  I believe that you think your references support your text, but you seem not to understand that the material I added to the LDE article is an accurate improvement to what was in the ERF article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant a Google Scholar search. Possibly the name ERF is used in University classes, but it is apparently not used in University-level papers.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Arthur Rubin, you may find several books. I believe you understand, reason why there was no article about ERF, the method is much less famous than method of undetermined coefficients is. Another name is method of exponential response and complex replacement. Wandalen (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Tolerance to newcomers
When addressed as not being sufficiently tolerant to newcomers, I feel urged to emphasize that I certainly do not perceive myself as a WP editor in good standing, and so I feel myself rather -as I read it recently- as a "WP spring chicken". Nevertheless I tried to edit your pet topic just to friendly hint you the environment this small theme belongs to, even when already then relevant opinion was voiced against this very article as a stand alone one. Please, do not charge others of intolerance, when you yourself obviously cannot rationally deal with reasoned opinion, opposing your pet views.

I certainly cannot argue at the topmost level of DEQs, but even from my restricted perspective this "formula" belongs to an extremely narrow question within the search for solutions of DEQs. First there is the radical restriction to "linear" DEQ. These are the only ones in the vast field of DEQs, which generally allow to find their general solution by superposing the general solution of the associated "homogeneous" DEQ -completely provided by some other theory- and an arbitrary solution for the given inhomogenous DEQ. Second, we must restrict our attention to the kind of DEQs with "constant" coefficients for the essential idea of the ERF to work, and third, only for a very specific type of inhomogenity of this extremely limited case of linear DEQs the ERF is applicable. Exactly this third-level special case is addressed now in a terse way, without the overhead, which is necessary to maintain an article on its own, in the suggested article on LDEQs, which might be expanded -among other improvements- to the benefit of WP by merging there some of the content here.

This here isolated article lacks theoretical substance and also has no practical importance in the light of contemporary math programs. Your claim of this topic being "university" stuff just holds for a small section in introductory courses on mathy applications, and as such is not fitting to an encyclopedic article on its own. I think you should care for your interests in this by shifting some content from here to there and maintaining it there for an overall improvement of WP, thereby avoiding any "hole" in the treatment of the larger topic. Purgy (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Obstruction to pending merge
There is a lot of heavy pseudo-activity in editing this article since 02.06.2017, which did not change the already mentioned verdict of there being "less here than meets the eye", evidently in response to obstruct any efforts to implement the proposed merge. Perhaps the ~150 single(!) IP-edits should be checked against the involved editor(s).

I'll put this note also in the target article's talk page, but -at my discretion- stop commenting on these matters. Purgy (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Sorry, did you call my and Phillip's contributions obstruction and pseudo-activity? Purgy, sorry, it sounds very offensive. What's wrong in desire to make a good article? Wandalen (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please WP:AGF. However, very little of the addition should possibly be in any Wikipedia article (some might be suitable for Wikibooks), and even less would be appropriate for this Wikipedia article, even if it were kept.  The restoration of the "See also" section is obstructive, as the links were all removed as appearing elsewhere in the article.  The rest of the edits are just misguided.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The connection between this method (whatever it is called) and the method of undetermined coefficients as now described is just wrong, even if it were in one of the sources. The addition of examples is just misguided.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I want to be very explicit about me definitely assuming good faith as far as the establishing of these very products of concerted editing as a WP article of its own is concerned, but I am also convinced that I am correct in assuming that this editing is a concerted action for obstructing a pending (=suggested) merge, and also for avoiding a meaningful discussion along these lines. I cannot sensibly interpret the mentioned ~150 edits of a single-interest IP-editor within 24 hours (sic!) in any other way. I still cling to the opinion that a selected (small) subset of this blown up collection of edits is best housed within the suggested merge target. Purgy (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Purgy Purgario, I and Phillip took unpayed day off to bring something missing on Wikipedia. We did it with good faith and hope you have the same. Sorry, if I offended you protecting my point of view. Wandalen (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello all. The two main contributors are obviously new to Wikipedia and they obviously did not read all the rules and policies related. However, I do not see what is the big issue here. Assuming they really want to contribute, and as a mathematician myself, I believe the article should be given a chance to develop. I also understand the merge request, but why making long existing articles, which are already difficult to read and comprehend. I also noticed the article is not written according to the WP:MANUAL, so some rewriting needs to be done. Just my thoughts. --EngiZe (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

See also section
Hello Arthur Rubin. Could you please explain why do you believe the article should have no "See also" section? Wandalen (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, something in the "See also" section is a related topic where the relationship is not described in the text. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I see. Wandalen (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See also WP:SEEALSO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Relation with other methods
''The connection between this method (whatever it is called) and the method of undetermined coefficients as now described is just wrong, even if it were in one of the sources. The addition of examples is just misguided.'' From Arthur Rubin. Wandalen (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Examples are appropriate for WikiBooks or Wikiversity. ONE illustrative example may be appropriate in a Wikipedia article, but the examples given are not really illustrative of this method.
 * The relationship between this method and that of undetermined coefficients is real, but clearly not as described. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)