Difference between revisions of "Talk:Residue calculus"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(reply to Kevin) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: 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) | : 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) | ||
| + | ::Kevin, our positions are hardly irrational, and we have no "fears" of the imaginary. These are calm, well-reasoned positions; you only need to read the articles to see that. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 00:44, 4 January 2009 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 05:44, 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)
- Kevin, our positions are hardly irrational, and we have no "fears" of the imaginary. These are calm, well-reasoned positions; you only need to read the articles to see that. -Foxtrot 00:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)