Category talk:Calculus

New categories

Thank you for recategorizing the calculus articles. One remark. I think if you put a certain article in Category: integral calculus, then it needs to be removed from Category:Calculus which is a supercategory of Category: integral calculus. I mean, the main point of putting things in a new subcategory is to refine the categorization and reduce clutter. Then, I think it does not make sence to still keep those articles also in the mother category. What do you think? Oleg Alexandrov 01:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. I agree with you for a taxonomic system. However, I found that some article already had double categorisation within the Calculus 'tree' so I continued with what I found rather than take on a new issue as well as the restructure. I'm happy to tidy this down / help tidy this down if you agree. Thanks, Ian Cairns 08:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

(moved from User talk: Icairns)

Which Calculus?

Shouldn't the calculus of Newton and Leibnitz be called "The Calculus" rather than simply "Calculus", since there are any number of calculi have been conceived for various intellectual purposes?

simplify/examples

ok, maybe i'm just an idiot but most of the articles i've looked at in here are written in a language that only mathmateicians could understand. they need to be simplified that way someone who is trying to figure out how to do a problem can figure it out. examples would greatly help that. some don't have that.--Jaysscholar 03:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

You may not be a total idiot, but your grammar could use some work. :p

Grammar. DakPowers (Talk) 04:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)