Talk:Wirtinger derivatives

Historical Note
As you suggested, I carefully read Quotations. However, it seems to indicate that the quotation you have repeatedly inserted is inappropriate. The quotation seems to present rhetorical language, is not worked into the article text, does not fall under either recommended use of quotations, and falls squarely under the description of "overusing quotations" (I draw your attention to bullet item 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8). I very much admire the dedication with which you have edited this and other articles but this quotation is not directly in line with the style of other articles on mathematical subjects, does not add useful information to the article, and is not encyclopedic in style or tone (especially the footnote).Gabriel.c.drummond.cole (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Gabriel, thank you for opening the discussion (and also for the appreciation of the results of my hobby ;) ). I have to analyze carefully your observations. However, since the entry is still incomplete due to the fact that I have received other relevant surveys and papers only recently, and the quotation by Severi refers to later applications of Wirtinger derivatives, I agree it is better to remove the quotation (at least for the moment). Nevertheless I have restored the historical section, since mixing historical informations with the technical definition and property does not make a sense. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Formalism

 *  paper is deliberately written from a formal point of view, i.e. without giving a rigorous derivation of the properties deduced
 * What is this supposed to mean? Where I come from, formalism is precisely rigor in deduction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, how are you? First of all, I am very sad to inform you that the question of what means mathematical rigour (but also logical rigour and the rigour in deduction) is still open; to my modest knowledge there have been at least three approaches to the foudation of mathematics that emerged as systematic theories during the first half of the 20th century, none of them being succesful. One of them was called the formalist school: if you need some more information, every book on the history of modern (or contemporary) mathematics will do, but I advice you (may I?) to have a look to the beautyful book, particularly to pages from 1203 to 1208, and still more particularly to this last one, where the author reports a (lightly sarcastic) note about rigour and formalism by Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer. At last, I have some questions for you:
 * Where is "Where I come from"?
 * Is "Where I come from" perhaps a reliable source of informations?
 * Don't you agree with me that it is strange that this entry, so new and not fully developed, was criticized in a soo deep and penetrating way just immediately after I hurt the feelings (or may be the ego?) of a noted self-conceited wikipedian with such trivial problems as the corrected name of the entry itself?
 * Daniele.tampieri (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A fascinating essay on the history of mathematics. But not to be trusted in matters of idiom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Idiom? We aren't talking of idioms, but of the meanings of a phrase in mathematical sciences, and also is not the only book on the history of modern mathematics describing the meaning of the word "formalism". Note also that the McGraw Hill dictionary of scientifical and technical terms offers a definition of "formal logic" very different from rigour. Can you show me some sources evidencing the use of the word "formalism" as meaning "rigour in deduction", at least in the mathematical sciences? If not, I'll delete the tag you placed: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not on personal opinions. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No civil answer to this is possible. You have not answered the question asked: "what does this mean?". Instead you have tried to prove what English idiom is; in the process demonstrating that you think "the question of what means" and "beautyful" are English. I am not interested at the moment in what rigor is; I was interested in what you meant. You don't know how mathematics is discussed in English; you didn't mean anything.
 * No civil answer to this is possible. You have not answered the question asked: "what does this mean?". Instead you have tried to prove what English idiom is; in the process demonstrating that you think "the question of what means" and "beautyful" are English. I am not interested at the moment in what rigor is; I was interested in what you meant. You don't know how mathematics is discussed in English; you didn't mean anything.


 * And please stay out of my inbox.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not answered to the question "what does it mean?" since this is simply not the question you asked, as is evident to anyone reading this discussion page. What you "asked" is the highly self-opinionated rhetorical question placed on the top of this page, remember? And I answered in the only civil manner to such a "question", i.e. confuting it, as a mere unsubstantiate personal opinion. If you were really interested in the answer to the question "what does it mean?" you should have stated precisely that question. And also, if you thought your "question" was misunderstanded, you should have replied so, refraining for a defense of your personal opinion about rigour in deduction and leaving the term idiom aside: and you did not. Concerning the assertion "You don't know how mathematics is discussed in English", well, is reference written in chinese? Are all other references of the entry written in a non-english language?. You missed another opportunity, i.e. to refrain from personal attacks. And last, but not least, you did not offered any verifiable source, i.e. you did not answerd to my questions in order to clarify that why and where I was misunderstandig your statement, and, like everyone who wants to impose his personal opinion, you blame others. Best Regards, Daniele.tampieri (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, we can all yell in bold; it proves nothing. And you still haven't answered my question, in either phrasing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You simply have to decide what is your question: then I will answer to it, obviously if I can. And also please, have a look at some dictionary definitions from theMerriam-Webster: formal, and also formalism. They are obviuosly a phrasing of Rigour in deduction as your "Where I come from" source of informations states. Daniele.tampieri (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My question is straightforward: What was paper is deliberately written from a formal point of view, i.e. without giving a rigorous derivation of the properties deduced  intended to mean?


 * Until I get an answer to that, preferably in intelligible English, I will continuue to remove it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No answer, I see. If there were one, I would be happy to edit the intended meaning; but I can't do it if I don't understand what the claim is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone a bit closer to the topic to actually make the edit, but I feel this article might be improved somewhat by moving the historical notes farther down. It's perhaps more interesting to consider the historical points after one knows what thing is actually being discussed and its basic properties. Especially that it is a generalization of the *complex* derivative to work on somewhat more arbitrary functions on R^2 or R^(2n) together with a means of measuring the failure of such functions to be holomorphic. The top bit says it behaves in a manner similar to ordinary derivatives of a single real variable, which while true, also seems like it doesn't really characterize what's going on enough. Cgibbard (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)