funny trying to define "derivative" without used the phrase "derived from"??
--(talk)BozMo 19:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2004-05-15T19:58:00.000Z","author":"BozMo","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-BozMo-2004-05-15T19:58:00.000Z-Funny","replies":[]}}-->
Why is the "references" section pointing to a wikipedia link which is obviously a shameless plug on someone's book?
Is there a name for the function of which a derivative is being taken? I want to say "differand" (the operand of a differential operator, like "integrand" for integration) but cannot find a reference anywhere online or in the books I have on hand.
"differend" has a [meaning] quite apart from maths, due to Jean-François Lyotard
I'm now using "derivand" after discussing it with some friends.
"Functions do not have derivatives at pointdiscontinuity." Not entirely true... derivatives also don't exist at points where the function isn't smooth i.e. f(x)=|x| at x=0.
do agree with this fact. puttig it more precisely a function is not diferentiable at "pin" points. this is because first derivative is nothing but the slope of the tangent at that point. to have a tangent at a point u need to have a curveshape . i.e. a radius of cuvature should exist at that point. so if we a have pin point that is a sharp point like |x| at x = 0, we don't have any radius of curvature at that point and hence can't be differentiable. this is about the significance of the differentiability.
The point where the derivative does not exist is called a cusp. --justinphd
I believe that a critical number of f(x) also happens when f '(x) is undefined, not only when it is equal to zero.
From the secion "Using Derivatives to Graph Functions":
"Additionally, the supremum of a continuous function on an open and bounded domain will also be one of the local maxima; the infimum will be one of the local minima--this gives one an easy way to find the bounds of the function's range."
I'm deleting this sentence. Counterexample: the function e^x on the open interval (0,1). Its supremum is e and its infimum is 1, but neither is a critical point.
On my computer, f prime looked like an f. If I looked really close, I could tell that the f that was really an f prime had a more rounded top than an f that wasn't prime. But anybody who can't read fine print any better than my wife can't see that, and the rest of us wouldn't notice either if we weren't expecting it. Maybe other people's fonts don't have that problem, but all I can do is fix the problem I can see here.
So I put a space between the f and the prime. It doesn't look perfect - the prime is more lost with an f than it is with a g - but at least it won't cause a computation error.
Putting a space between the f and the prime doesn't work when the formula is inside those <mmath> thingies (mmath mispelling intentional to prevent it from formatting my text) in the Algebraic Manipulation section. But most of the formulas look the same with or without the <mmath> thingies. So I took them off in many places. But not in all places, because exponents don't work without the <mmath>'s. My conclusion was to take off some of the <mmath>'s but not all of them. The result is even more funny looking than the f prime/g prime problem, but at least it won't cause a computation error like the previous version would have. Art LaPella 06:49, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Since then I reported the problem as a bug, and got this answer: "This is a problem with the specific fonts your browser is displaying and has nothing to do with MediaWiki or the site configuration." That's imaginable, except I don't know enough to monkey with fonts, so many of you may have the same problem. On my wife's computer f prime doesn't look like an f, but it looks like f square, which is almost as bad. Look at prime (symbol) and see if the f prime looks like an f. If so, Wikipedia presumably has lots of f primes that look like f's. Art LaPella 20:14, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
That's definitely your browser's choice of fonts. Pick a different font. On OSX, the prime is too low (the top of the prime is below the top of the f), but otherwise it's fine. If I change the font to Times, the italic f is too italic so the prime is stuck to it. This is a problem with OSX's renderer (though properly aligning italic text beside normal text has always been a problem). Either way, catering for rendering bugs isn't a good habit to get into. Elektron 13:35, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
Of course, we could change it back to an italic apostrophe, which probably renders more correctly but is even more incorrect (in Unicode, anyway). Elektron 13:41, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make sense to put the math tags back in, and display math as a PNG for those who have problems? I suspect Art LaPella would have to do this manually for his user, or move "formulas that have primes" to the category of formulas which should use PNGs by default (which the WikiMedia people may be reluctant to do), but that makes (IMHO) more sense than violating Unicode and WikiMedia standards for the benefit of someone with a poor choice of fonts (which may be a poor choice on the part of whoever developed the browser, I'm not blaming anyone, it just doesn't seem to matter to me). Roie m 12:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Does this all mean it works with your choice of a font, or does it mean you looked until you found a good one? I looked at several computers belonging to neighbors and friends and ALL of them show f prime as f or as f box. I don't see why it matters that I could pick a different font or browser - I've already learned calculus anyway, but anyone who hasn't will be as hopelessly confused as a kid with an arithmetic book whose + looks like a -. They won't stop to try a different font, they will just get the wrong answer. Software that works for a minority that knows the trick, is software that doesn't work. If there is no high tech solution, a space before the prime works fine. Art LaPella 63.229.19.235 23:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
One should charitably assume that the statement
means that if a Function has a discontinuity or a vertical tangent then it is not differentiable; the converse of course is false. Shouldn't this be made clearer, since many readers are likely to be much less eager to rely on principles of charity.
Also could the word "embodies" used in the phrase
occuring in the introduction be be replaced by something indicating more precisely the relation between the derivative and the rate of change? CSTAR 01:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What exactly does this section add? Wouldn't it be enough to say that the derivative of f at c is also the same as
CSTAR 05:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
the rule that dy/dx = dy/dt / dx/dt for parametric functions seems like a useful formula to me. Sure, it's redundant, because it can be derived from the Chain rule, but so derivatives for inverse functions and implicit differentiation. If derivatives of parametric functions are redundant and have to be deleted, then shouldn't these other be deleted as well? I believe they all have a place here and should stay. -Lethe | Talk 22:47, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
I think we need some good graphics in this article. I'm pretty proficient at XFIG and will be happy to make them IF I get suggestions of what might be useful; I'm getting tired of being mired in a controversy :) CSTAR 23:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hey CSTAR, I noticed several times you use the title of the previous section as subject for your current post, that can be confusing :)
About pictures. The section "Using derivatives to graph functions" could use a nice picture I think. I don't have other suggestions. If you don't want to get mired in a controversy again, maybe you could suggest what you want to graph, and then we can discuss if this is a good idea. :)
PS So are you claiming somebody got mad at your graphics? Did you graph naked women or something? :) Oleg Alexandrov 23:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I propose initially at least three illustrations:
1. One similar to the picture illustrating the secant that is already there
2. One picture illustrating the tangent
3. One picture illustrating the tangent as a limit of secant
These illustrations would all be in the same style and moreover, new ones could be easily produced from the XFIG sources.
Other possible pictures include
CSTAR 03:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, is there any such thing as an nth derivative for non-integer values of n? Fredrik | talk 21:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The short answer is yes. The long answer is that I don't know exactly how it is defined. It might have something to do with taking the Fourier transform, then multiplying by x β β --> {\displaystyle x^{\beta }} where β β --> {\displaystyle \beta } is the n thing you want, then taking the inverse Fourier transform.
I think one need some care in defining this kind of derivative, as it might be not unique (like the indefinite integrals).
Other people might know more. Oleg Alexandrov 21:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'll accept the short answer for now, then. Thanks. - Fredrik | talk 23:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can especially recommend the fractional calculus article, as it also will introduce you to the wonderful Cauchy formula for a function...which in turn is directly related to how to understand Feynamn diagrammes....
Here are some examples. I have the xfig sources, so changes are easy.
(Deleted)
Nice pictures! Just several remarks.
1) Arrows could be made bigger (much bigger).
2) The axes could be made thinner. This so that the more important parts of the image are the thicker ones, and the more secondary ones be thinner.
3) It is good if the pictures are displayed at the natural resolution at which they were created. Otherwise things look blurry/or pixelated. So, could you make the images smaller, make sure they are not aliased, and then remove the thumb:300px thing. That would be great. Thanks! Oleg Alexandrov 21:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
PS Are you thinking of making some pics for the convex page too? Oleg Alexandrov 21:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) --
PS I did follow the Bell-CT show recently (I hope she does not see this page :) I believe nothing will convince her to back off. (She is even proud of that scientist's comment which did not have good words for her work :) Oleg Alexandrov 00:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
CSTAR 05:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Awesome! Looking forward to seeing these on the main page. Oleg Alexandrov 05:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
CSTAR 06:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, you do have minimal qualifications to draw pictures.
Note, this is not an offence. Having minimal qualifications means you have a lower bound. As far as the upper bound, the sky's the limit. :)
Good job! Oleg Alexandrov 06:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
At the end of the article, one has the following reference
Now, I have nothing against making red links which one day will become articles. However, I really doubt the links above will ever be filled, and if yes, if those will be good articles. After all, we are talking about a textbook among many.
Note that the link to Larson, Ron is not red, but all that article actually says is that Ron Larson wrote the Calculus of a Single Variable: Early Transcendental Functions book, plus another one; and who the editor is. And I doubt that guy did anything else as remarkable as to be worth writing in here.
I would say the links in that reference are reduntant. What do you think? Oleg Alexandrov 15:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(by User:Freshwind)
I don't think that's possible. Oleg Alexandrov 04:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmm.. I think maybe it is possible, at least at the level of physical rigour. I seem to remember seeing my QM prof doing it to get from Hamilton's equations of motion to Heisenberg's equations of motion. On the other hand, I've never seen it at home across the street in the math department. So... hm.. -Lethe | Talk 04:42, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
firstly, you claim that the definition of the Banach space derivative won't depend on my choice of norm. I agree with that, and should have known, right? All norms are equivalent for finite dimensional spaces.
I don't follow your comment about the funny definition I listed. Firstly, sure, I could choose another "direction" along which to take the derivative than I. but how do I choose? and presumably the answer will depend on that choice?
Is that definition even a sensible definition? Why do you think it won't give 2X for the derivative of X^2. I am sure that it will give that derivative. In fact, the proof can be taken wholesale from the real valued example. But it can't be the same as the Banach space derivative, since it doesn't use a norm in its definition. So there must be something wrong with it. Another reason that mine is different from the Banach derivative is that my derivative is a (not necessarily linear) function between two matrix spaces. For example, using my derivative, a function x |-> e^ax is a map from nxn matrices to nxn matrices. You can take the derivative of it and get a new map, x |-> ae^ax. The Banach space derivative is different, it gives you instead the linearization of the function at each point. Are the two related? Hm -Lethe | Talk 12:14, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Matrix multiplication is smooth so matrix groups are Lie groups. Any smooth function between Lie groups has a derivative: its tangent map between the corresponding Lie algebras. This is not the Lie derivative.--MarSch 28 June 2005 13:13 (UTC)
This (should-be important) page does not respect the guidelines of Wikipedia:How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics : there is no "Definition" section and no precise definition of the terms used.
Also, part of the article only refers to derivatives of functions of one real variable and/or taking values in R, without this being mentioned.
It is not said if the point where the derivative is taken must lie in the interior of the function's domain or if it can be at the border. (Of course, if there is not even a definition...)
Once again, I plead in favour of adopting the rule that an article starting with "in mathematics" should, no: must have a rigourous and at the same time, general definition, before, not "maybe after", handwaving explanations, historical facts (which of course are important) and things like that. — MFH: Talk 20:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-05-24T20:32:00.000Z","author":"MFH","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MFH-2005-05-24T20:32:00.000Z-there_is_no_definition","replies":[]}}-->
Hi Oleg, I'm wondering if you have any other suggestions about how to deal with my question about the scope of the derivative article. As it stands, I feel the introductory section is inaccurate. For example, where it says "It should be noted that not all functions have derivatives", clearly this phrase is not intended to apply to the function which assigns to each set its power set (!).
I think it is important to qualify the scope of the article at the beginning, in some way that does not turn off people who were expecting only functions of real numbers (or who know no other kind), while still remaining accurate. I had hoped some kind of comment like the one I had added would do this. Thanks. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 16:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, I agree that Oleg's suggestion (e.g. a derivative (generalizations) page) would be an improvement, but I still don't think it addresses the real issue.
The problem is that this is an encyclopaedia article, not an introductory chapter or preface of a high school calculus textbook. I don't have any problem with WP having an article about the derivative, with the same material and aimed at the same audience as the present version of the article. In fact I think it's an excellent idea to have such an article. However, it should be called something like Derivative (high school version) (or preferably a more tactful title), and the main derivative article should prominently link to it, labelled in such a way that a high school or college student will find it without any hassle.
The present state of the article is a bit like having an article on group theory that only discusses permutation groups, or an article on manifolds that only discusses submanifolds of Rn, simply because it's easier, more elementary, and closer to the order that things happened historically. I don't think that's what WP should be about. Of course I don't expect group theory to cover everything about groups; but it certainly should give some immediate indication of the scope of the concept. At the very least, if it's only going to discuss permutation groups, it should plainly mention the fact that this is only one way of looking at groups, and there is more to the story; and it certainly should not define a group to be what amounts to a permutation group. Similarly for derivative.
Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 22:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good point, but I think it's only valid if you understand encyclopedic in the sense of say an "encyclopedia of mathematics" (for example along the lines of the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics published by MIT press). We are really addressing a very wide audience to whom the entry should provide some useful information. I agree that rigorous and extremely general definitions (such as functions on Banach manifolds) have to be somewhere in Wikipedia
I think this is a bad comparison, because someone that happens on differentiable manifold will likely have more sophistication than somebody that stumbles on derivative.
--CSTAR 22:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, I agree that manifolds are a poor example. Let me try another one, which I hope will illustrate my point more effectively. Consider the article continuous function. This is certainly something that a first year college student might look up (possibly even a high school student). I think continuous function does a much better job of handling different audiences than the current version of derivative (although incidentally in my opinion it still needs a lot of work... some pictures would be nice). It starts out with a fairly wishy-washy description in terms of input values having effects on output values, without saying too much about what kind of functions are being discussed. Then it gives some specific examples, which happen to be real-valued functions of real numbers. Then it has a paragraph discussing generalisations, which link immediately to Continuity (topology) which gives the most general definitions of continuity in mathematical use. The next section of the article is called "Real-valued continuous functions" and is very explicit about its restricted scope. I think that the Continuous function article manages all of this without in any way "scaring off" a first-year undergrad; if anything it might just pique their curiosity.
In contrast, the introduction to Derivative gives not the slightest indication that the concept leads to something far more general. There's a really nice sentence later in Derivative, The common thread is that the derivative at a point serves as a linear approximation of the function at that point. I think it would be great if something like that could appear in the intro. I'm not going to write it now because there seems to be a lot of opposition, but if I get any support here (HINT HINT), maybe I'll try. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 00:19, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, not quite. But the article, I realize, doesn't say anywhere what the derivative is in what I would regard as a mathematically correct way. That's bad. Nevertheless, the intro (pre TOC) grafs are OK (although possibly redundant). --CSTAR 28 June 2005 03:57 (UTC)
I will follow linas's advice. Caution is called for. Therefore, I put up for discussion/amendment the following rewrite of the introduction to Derivative.
The new article Derivative (generalizations) will basically contain the list that is currently under the section heading Derivative#See also. Incidentally, I think it would be appropriate for many of the entries in that list to have a one sentence summary.
Some comments I would like to make before the free-for-all begins.
Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 28 June 2005 12:03 (UTC)
OK, how about this:
Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 29 June 2005 15:30 (UTC)
By the way, may I ask a WP etiquette question? On the one hand I've been told it's bad form to edit a discussion page. On the other hand, for a discussion like the one taking place here, it would be much more pleasant to simply edit the proposed introduction in-place. What's the best thing to do here? Thanks. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 29 June 2005 15:58 (UTC)
Since this article is basically only about differentiable functions and not about the much more general concept of a derivative, perhaps it would be a good idea to move to differentiable function, which currently redirects here. It would also be the right place for my recently created stub differentiabillity class. Smooth function might be merged also. --MarSch 30 June 2005 13:20 (UTC)
Actually I was a bit surprised that differentiable function doesn't exist and since it redirected here... I think it is better if smooth function and differentiability class are merged to diff function. --MarSch 2 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)
The algebra thing is more complicated, as there you have elementary algebra, algebra, and abstract algebra. Either way, since the derivative is a very important article, I would oppose moving it without a lot of discussion and quite a bit of votes for the move. Oleg Alexandrov 5 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)
I think that it is good the way it is. Derivative is a much more common term and this article deals with said topic. At the same time differentiable function implies the article talks more about what a differentiable function is and most of those who come to wikipedia will know it as the derivative anyway and in this instance if the majority of the inquiries are for derivative, that is what the main article should be.Guardian of Light 5 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)
I disagree with the notion that the two central topics in calculus are the derivative and the antiderivative (these are probably two different ways of looking at the same topic). The two topics are the derivative and the integral. The integral and the antiderivative, while closely related by the fundamental theorem, are conceptually quite distinct. -Lethe | Talk June 30, 2005 14:10 (UTC)
This section duplicates the following sections and is not very well written. Maybe the last few lines contain new information, but most of it can be eliminated. --MarSch 30 June 2005 16:54 (UTC)
I've cut the pronounciations:
This definition is discussed in more detail below. If f is a function, the derivative of the function f at the value x is written in several ways: f ′ ( x ) {\displaystyle f'(x)\quad } pronounced "f prime of x" or "f dash of x" d d x f ( x ) {\displaystyle {\frac {d}{dx}}f(x)} pronounced "d by d x of f of x" or "d d x of f of x". d f d x {\displaystyle {\frac {df}{dx}}} pronounced "d f by d x" or "d f d x" D x f {\displaystyle D_{x}f\quad } pronounced "d sub x of f" x ˙ ˙ --> {\displaystyle {\dot {x}}} pronounced "x dot", indicating dx/dt.
This definition is discussed in more detail below. If f is a function, the derivative of the function f at the value x is written in several ways:
pronounced "f prime of x" or "f dash of x"
pronounced "d by d x of f of x" or "d d x of f of x".
pronounced "d f by d x" or "d f d x"
pronounced "d sub x of f"
pronounced "x dot", indicating dx/dt.
I find the new rewrite of the introduction rather incomprihenseble to non-mathematicians. What do people think? Oleg Alexandrov 04:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-08-01T04:13:00.000Z","author":"Oleg Alexandrov","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-08-01T04:13:00.000Z-Recent_changes_to_this_article","replies":["c-Dmharvey-2005-08-01T10:54:00.000Z-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-08-01T04:13:00.000Z","c-Pmanderson-2005-08-01T21:49:00.000Z-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-08-01T04:13:00.000Z"]}}-->
If you had something personal against me, you wouldn't be the first - and so it wouldn't stand in the way of anything. ;) Besides, around these topics, to be called incomprehensible is (how strange that is!) a compliment. --VKokielov 04:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-08-03T04:18:00.000Z","author":"VKokielov","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-VKokielov-2005-08-03T04:18:00.000Z-Recent_changes_to_this_article","replies":["c-CSTAR-2005-08-03T14:46:00.000Z-VKokielov-2005-08-03T04:18:00.000Z","c-CSTAR-2005-08-06T15:40:00.000Z-VKokielov-2005-08-03T04:18:00.000Z"]}}-->
Why is the introduction now two pages long? Surely this is getting out of hand. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 10:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-08-06T10:42:00.000Z","author":"Dmharvey","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dmharvey-2005-08-06T10:42:00.000Z-Recent_changes_to_this_article","replies":["c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-08-06T15:04:00.000Z-Dmharvey-2005-08-06T10:42:00.000Z","c-CSTAR-2005-08-06T15:37:00.000Z-Dmharvey-2005-08-06T10:42:00.000Z"]}}-->
I reverted back to the old (27 of July) introduction (somebody had to do it). I suggest that energy better be spent improving the derivative (generalizations) article, rather than fixing this one which is not broken. Pmanderson, I am sorry to have also removed some of your fixes, your intent was good, but the introduction was rather broken recently, and I think a revert was a better way to take care of it. Oleg Alexandrov 16:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-08-10T16:57:00.000Z","author":"Oleg Alexandrov","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-08-10T16:57:00.000Z-Recent_changes_to_this_article","replies":["c-Pmanderson-2005-08-10T17:05:00.000Z-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-08-10T16:57:00.000Z"]}}-->
I support Oleg's revert action. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 16:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-08-10T16:55:00.000Z","author":"Dmharvey","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dmharvey-2005-08-10T16:55:00.000Z-After_Oleg's_reversion","replies":["c-CSTAR-2005-08-10T17:04:00.000Z-Dmharvey-2005-08-10T16:55:00.000Z"]}}-->
In the first instance of x ˙ ˙ --> {\displaystyle {\dot {x}}\;} , where all the different ways of expressing f(x) are discussed, shouldn't it be f ˙ ˙ --> {\displaystyle {\dot {f}}\;} instead? Note that further down in the article, the function d x d t {\displaystyle {\frac {dx}{dt}}\;} is expressed as x ˙ ˙ --> {\displaystyle {\dot {x}}\;} instead of t ˙ ˙ --> {\displaystyle {\dot {t}}\;} . (Not an expert here, forgive me if I'm wrong!) Agent Zero 19:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-08-09T19:34:00.000Z","author":"VAgentZero","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-VAgentZero-2005-08-09T19:34:00.000Z-Definition_of_\"x-dot\"","replies":["c-MarSch-2005-09-25T18:03:00.000Z-VAgentZero-2005-08-09T19:34:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Agent Zero"}}-->
For my GCSE maths homework, I have been told to research differentiation and, naturally, I came here but I can't make head nor tail of it. I will give you some background. We have just started some coursework about maximizing the volumes of trays. Here is the statement,
I have found out, using algebra and examples, that this is true but our teacher said that to get top marks, we need to learn about differenciation and throw that in somewhere. She won't tell us what it is or how to use it: we have to work it out. I am not asking you to do my homework for me but at least give me a start, or change the article so that it is easier for a lay reader (like myself) to understand. Could someone please help me? --Celestianpower hab 17:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-09-20T17:33:00.000Z","author":"Celestianpower","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Celestianpower-2005-09-20T17:33:00.000Z-Help_with_a_problem","replies":["c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-09-21T00:03:00.000Z-Celestianpower-2005-09-20T17:33:00.000Z"]}}-->
I don't think this is the right formula for the volume. This allows the box to be as big as it wants and same for the volume, which would imply inifinite box with infinite volume. There must be some constraints which keep the box from increazing too much.
Now, to find the derivative, you need to use the power rule, which says that the derivative of x^3 is 3x^2, which multiplied by 2/27 will give the answer (x^2)*6/27, which can be simplified. After you set it equal to zero, you would get x=0, which is the wrong answer, because I think your original volume function is not right. Oleg Alexandrov 15:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-09-21T15:25:00.000Z","author":"Oleg Alexandrov","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-09-21T15:25:00.000Z-Help_with_a_problem","replies":["c-Celestianpower-2005-09-21T17:15:00.000Z-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-09-21T15:25:00.000Z"]}}-->
OK, I misunderstood you. You need to explain how you make a box from a piece of cardboard. Do you make square cuts at the corners of the cardboard? Do you have an open box or a closed box? You see, you can't just fold a piece of cardboard in a box without overlaps or without cuts. And whether the box is open or not will change the answer. Oleg Alexandrov 17:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-09-21T17:30:00.000Z","author":"Oleg Alexandrov","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-09-21T17:30:00.000Z-Help_with_a_problem","replies":["c-Celestianpower-2005-09-21T17:40:00.000Z-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-09-21T17:30:00.000Z"]}}-->
So, originally, the side of the card is 18 cm. At the beginning, you don't know the size of the square corners you cut, so you denote them by x (this is now a true unknown, unlike your x above). Once you chop from a segment of length 18 the length x twice (once for each end) you are left with a side of 18-2*x. When you fold the thing, the box gets a height, which is x. So, you obtain an open box of base 18-2x by 18-2x and height x. Please do not read the next paragraph until you make a drawing and convince yourself that what I say makes sense. And keep in mind, we don't know yet what x is.
Now, after folding the thing, a box with base 18-2x by 18-2x and height x has volume (width times breadth times height) of
Multiply this through. Take its derivative (use the sum rule and the power rule, see the derivative article). Set the derivative to equal zero. Solve for x. You will get two answers, hopefully only one of them will be positive. That will be the correct x, which if you plug back in V(x) should give you the volume you want. Oleg Alexandrov 18:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-09-21T18:14:00.000Z","author":"Oleg Alexandrov","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-09-21T18:14:00.000Z-Help_with_a_problem","replies":["c-Celestianpower-2005-09-21T20:13:00.000Z-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-09-21T18:14:00.000Z"]}}-->
OK.
You need to set this equal to zero and solve for x. This assuming that I did the calculation right. Oleg Alexandrov 20:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-09-21T20:36:00.000Z","author":"Oleg Alexandrov","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-09-21T20:36:00.000Z-Help_with_a_problem","replies":["c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-09-25T22:53:00.000Z-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-09-21T20:36:00.000Z"]}}-->
Yes - of course you do! Thank you very much. I asked a second opinion and have now cracked it in my own head. It's easier actually conversing with a person I find. Here it is:
When x is the length of the paper originally, and y is the length of cut off, the formula is such:
This turns into:
We differentiate for y:
When dv/dx = 0, the equation reads thus:
Then we factorise:
Therefore y equals either
or
This is what I wanted and if verifies my other work. Again, thank you. Perhaps I'll get a good coursework mark now... --Celestianpower hablamé 16:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-09-26T16:09:00.000Z","author":"Celestianpower","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Celestianpower-2005-09-26T16:09:00.000Z-Help_with_a_problem","replies":[],"displayName":"Cel"}}-->
Where would be the correct place to discuss
this notation could also make the proof of the product rule more readable.
--MarSch 13:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC).__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-10-28T13:10:00.000Z","author":"MarSch","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MarSch-2005-10-28T13:10:00.000Z-operator_notation","replies":["c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-10-28T13:33:00.000Z-MarSch-2005-10-28T13:10:00.000Z"]}}-->
Shouldn't the article Derivation (abstract algebra) be merged into this article? Jon Harald Søby \ no na 07:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-11-04T07:07:00.000Z","author":"Jon Harald S\u00f8by","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jon_Harald_S\u00f8by-2005-11-04T07:07:00.000Z-Merge","replies":["c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2005-11-04T16:41:00.000Z-Jon_Harald_S\u00f8by-2005-11-04T07:07:00.000Z"],"displayName":"na"}}-->
People more knowledgable on the topic may want to merge any relevant or intersting information from the old version of the Differential calculus page [1] which now redirects here. It was terribly formatted but there may be something in it. Cormaggio @ 18:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2005-11-22T18:58:00.000Z","author":"Cormaggio","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cormaggio-2005-11-22T18:58:00.000Z-Merge","replies":[]}}-->
I'm very skeptical about when people multiply both side of an equation by dx, for example if dy/dx=x^2, they multiply both sides and get dy=x^2dx. In the article it clearly says you cant cancel out or multiply dx, but everywhere I look they seem to do so. I am confused, can someone explain? --anon
Thanks you've being a lot of help :)
The article states that critical points are where the derivative is undefined or zero, and that local extrema only occur at critical points. But clearly functions on the unit interval can have local extrema at their endpoints, and the derivatives can be nonzero and defined there, using one-sided limits. The statement as it stands is therefore wrong, but I'm unsure as to whether the correct remedy is to allow boundary points of the domain to be critical points, or to change the result to say that extrema occur at critical points or boundary points. -lethe talk 23:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "macroscopic change" links to this page. I was wondering why that is, since that phrase is never discussed on this page. I found the link to macroscopic change on the page for "delta". A derivative is an infintesimal change, which seems to me would also be the meaning of "microscopic change", which links to the page "differential". Does anyone know if a differential is the same thing as a derivative? or what the difference is? Also, what is a macroscopic change? is it an average change? Fresheneesz 22:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-02-10T22:11:00.000Z","author":"Fresheneesz","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Fresheneesz-2006-02-10T22:11:00.000Z-Macroscopic_change","replies":[]}}-->
"We can write the derivative of f at the point a in two different ways:
I've never seen the second notation ever before ever (probably because it looks like you're multiplying by a... horrible notation). Sorry if that is redundant, but i've *always* *always* *always* seen the notation f ′ ( a ) {\displaystyle f'(a)\!\ } or d f ( a ) d x {\displaystyle {\frac {df(a)}{dx}}\!\ } to denote the derivative at the point a. Should I add this? Fresheneesz 01:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-02-11T01:12:00.000Z","author":"Fresheneesz","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Fresheneesz-2006-02-11T01:12:00.000Z-Denoting_the_derivative_at_a_point","replies":[]}}-->
I disagree with the recent edits to this article by Fresheneesz. First, the variables should be italic, and one should write ==Introduction== and not ==Intro==. More importantly, the "real" defintion was not on top for a purpose. It is good to start things with motivation, with the heavy things later (like limits). Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-02-11T01:55:00.000Z","author":"Oleg Alexandrov","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2006-02-11T01:55:00.000Z-Recent_edits_to_this_article","replies":["c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2006-02-11T01:57:00.000Z-Oleg_Alexandrov-2006-02-11T01:55:00.000Z"]}}-->
Conceptually, the derivative is a rate of change of a function, which can be visulized by the slope of the graph of the function at a certain point. An analogy is that the derivative is like a velocity - one can change their speed, but at a given time, one has an "instantaneous" velocity (derivative). Just like velocity, a function's slope can change, but at any given point on the graph, the graph has an "instantaneous" slope - a tangent line.
-Fresheneesz 04:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-02-11T04:31:00.000Z","author":"Fresheneesz","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Fresheneesz-2006-02-11T04:31:00.000Z-Recent_edits_to_this_article","replies":["c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2006-02-11T17:30:00.000Z-Fresheneesz-2006-02-11T04:31:00.000Z"]}}-->
I think the way the intro starts is with the "instantaneous rate of change". Is that what you want? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-02-13T01:01:00.000Z","author":"Oleg Alexandrov","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2006-02-13T01:01:00.000Z-Recent_edits_to_this_article","replies":[]}}-->
The page heat equation links to this page when talking about a "spatial derivative". there is no article on spatial derivative, and I think some mention of whatever a "spatial derivative" is would be nice to User: fresheneesz
All in all the derivative article is a very solid piece of work, but it baffles me that it's not mentioned with a single sentence how important this field of mathematics has become in financial analysis/prediction as well as statistical analysis/prediction. Yes, physics is the most useful field. But it still baffles me I must admit.
Inflection points of a graph can, and is often used, to predict a change in growth of a phenomena. Be it CO2 emission, world population, average temperature change, stocks on exchanges, and much more.
Also, I feel that this article does not show to the reader clearly enough how derivative is used for graph analysis in general.
(I refer to http://www.clas.ucsb.edu/staff/lee/Inflection%20Points.htm for reference)
The--dud 12:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-02-25T12:48:00.000Z","author":"The--dud","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-The--dud-2006-02-25T12:48:00.000Z-Finding_inflection_points_where_f''(x)_equals_zero","replies":[]}}-->
Whereas the concept of derivative(s) are ineherent, germane, and critical to the role of economics, a concern in which we all participate, I move to add the following post discussion and modification:
Economics - The functional basis of fiat-based banking.
My revert was not quite well explained. Of course using symmetric difference will make for a higher order accuracy, so O(h^2) instead of O(h). However, you cannot use the symmetric difference as a definition, as then the absolute value would be differentiable at zero, and it is not.
Anyways, I found that addition not so helpful, and removed it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-05-19T18:59:00.000Z","author":"Oleg Alexandrov","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2006-05-19T18:59:00.000Z-Symmetric_difference","replies":[]}}-->
Hi!
This is me who added symmetric derivative thing.
Actually I wasn't talking about definitions, but about correct calculating of derivative [you were right in your comment when mentioned that it's applicable for numeric stuff]. I didn't find anything about it on wiki, so I think it should be added something like that:
If:
1. There exists left-derivative;
2. There exists right-derivative;
3. They are equal,
than derivative can be calculated more precisely with following formula: lim h → → --> 0 f ( x + h ) − − --> f ( x − − --> h ) 2 h {\displaystyle \lim _{h\rightarrow 0}{\frac {f(x+h)-f(x-h)}{2h}}} .
How about that?
I agree that it should not be said here. But also I think you should correct this article [because your corrections will be more correct, I believe]: Numerical differentiation
It's said there that h {\displaystyle h} can be positive and negative;
nobody is talking about existance of derivative in the point (equality of left and right derivatives);
and no any example of curves that can not be calculated this way (absolute value). I think all these remarks are important! Thank you!
Take a look at German version HERE
The article gave the pronunciation as "dy by dx", expecting readers to know that "dy" would be pronounced as individual letters and "by" would be pronounced as a word. Does anybody read this stuff? Anyway, my request is that someone who knows how write it out phonetically. I think it might be something like /di waɪ baɪ di ɛks/, based on the IPA chart for English. --KSmrqT 23:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-05-19T23:43:00.000Z","author":"KSmrq","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-KSmrq-2006-05-19T23:43:00.000Z-Pronunciation","replies":[]}}-->
I think that a few more things should be added could be added the on the rules of differentiation. For instance: d log b --> x d x = 1 x ln --> b {\displaystyle {\frac {d\log _{b}x}{dx}}={\frac {1}{x\ln b}}} And other formulas for the differentiation of various kinds of functions. (Trigonometric, exponential, natural exponential, multi-dimensional, etc.) Or perhaps a new article should be created specifically listing such techniques.He Who Is 23:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-06-03T23:00:00.000Z","author":"He Who Is","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-He_Who_Is-2006-06-03T23:00:00.000Z-Techniques","replies":["c-Oleg_Alexandrov-2006-06-04T00:40:00.000Z-He_Who_Is-2006-06-03T23:00:00.000Z"]}}-->
I'll do it, but once I doubt I'll be able to add that much, so any additions thereafterare greatly appreciated. Also, I'm majorly obsessive compulsive. So I'm going to make it Techniques for Differentiation. He Who Is 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-06-04T01:36:00.000Z","author":"He Who Is","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-He_Who_Is-2006-06-04T01:36:00.000Z-Techniques","replies":["c-Lethe-2006-06-04T02:30:00.000Z-He_Who_Is-2006-06-04T01:36:00.000Z"]}}-->
I have to say that is a strange naming convention, considering that in the case of titles it is generally accepted that one capitilises the first word, as well as all following words aside from prepositions, linking verbs, articles, and a few others. Either way (If I remember correctly,) the first word of a title on Wikipedia is not case sensitive, so I'll just use Oleg's original link. He Who Is 16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I also wish to note that I began to work on the article, then accidently exited the window and lost my progress. It being late (In my time, at least), I decided to simply get some sleep and do it in the morning, hence it will take slightly longer than expected. This time, though, I'll write in Word, so as not to loose it.__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-06-04T16:06:00.000Z","author":"He Who Is","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-He_Who_Is-2006-06-04T16:06:00.000Z-Techniques","replies":[]}}-->
I think it might be insightful to include a few sentances about historical objections to the derivation of derivates. I remember reading somewhere some sort of clergyman-mathematician objected to the cancelation of terms that were going to be taken to zero in the x^2 example. This could be followed my a mention that the rigourous treatment provided by analysis solves quells any worries. 131.111.8.99 13:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-06-08T13:14:00.000Z","author":"131.111.8.99","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-131.111.8.99-2006-06-08T13:14:00.000Z-Objections","replies":["c-Lethe-2006-06-08T13:24:00.000Z-131.111.8.99-2006-06-08T13:14:00.000Z"]}}-->
I think 131.111.8.99's suggestion is a good one. I wanted to add a blurb about Berkeley's objections to calculus. But I am appalled to discover that this article has exactly no information about the history of the derivative, which is where such information would go. What gives? -lethe talk + 03:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-06-09T03:49:00.000Z","author":"Lethe","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Lethe-2006-06-09T03:49:00.000Z-Objections","replies":[]}}-->
A sentence states the following:
which is followed by a non-linear function. Shouldn't the sentence read, "For example, if an object's position on a curve or parabola"? Or a linear equation could be used as the example? Excuse me if it's a dumb question, as I'm just a first-semester Physics major! --Dialecticas 17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-08-31T17:43:00.000Z","author":"Dialecticas","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dialecticas-2006-08-31T17:43:00.000Z-Small_correction_to_Physics_section?","replies":[]}}-->
Derivative of one variable with respect to another when both are functions of other variables: Let x = f(u,v) and y = g(u,v). Now dy / dx = ??.
if u & v are independent, then {(x,y)} is not a function. dy/dx is not defined. If u & v are interdependent, then dy/dx is defined. Jackzhp 23:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2006-09-23T23:01:00.000Z","author":"Jackzhp","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jackzhp-2006-09-23T23:01:00.000Z-About_chain_rule","replies":[]}}-->
Artikel ini tidak memiliki referensi atau sumber tepercaya sehingga isinya tidak bisa dipastikan. Tolong bantu perbaiki artikel ini dengan menambahkan referensi yang layak. Tulisan tanpa sumber dapat dipertanyakan dan dihapus sewaktu-waktu.Cari sumber: Sepak bola dalam tahun 1850-an – berita · surat kabar · buku · cendekiawan · JSTOR Berikut ini adalah peristiwa sepak bola di seluruh dunia dalam dekade 1850-an. Peristiwa 24 Oktober 1857 — Sheffield F.C.…
El triángulo de Calabi, con sus tres cuadrados inscritos El triángulo de Calabi es un triángulo especial, hallado por Eugenio Calabi.[1] Considérese el cuadrado más grande que se puede situar en el interior de un triángulo arbitrario. Puede ser que dicho cuadrado se pueda colocar en el triángulo de más de una manera. Si el cuadrado más grande puede colocarse de tres formas diferentes, entonces el triángulo es un triángulo equilátero o bien es un triángulo de Calabi.[2]…
Jacques Soustelle (1958) Jacques Soustelle (Montpellier, 3 februari 1912 – Neuilly-sur-Seine, 6 augustus 1990) was een Frans antropoloog, gespecialiseerd in precolumbiaanse beschavingen. Hij was tevens een belangrijk figuur bij de Vrije Fransen, directeur van het Musée de l'Homme, politicus, en lid van de Académie française.[1] Biografie Jacques Soustelle werd geboren in een protestantse arbeidersfamilie. Hij bleek op de middelbare school erg intelligent, en kreeg daarom een aanbeve…
Dalam kimia fisik, mineralogi, dan teknik material, diagram fase adalah sejenis grafik yang digunakan untuk menunjukkan kondisi kesetimbangan antara fase-fase yang berbeda dari suatu zat yang sama. Dalam matematika dan fisika, diagram fase juga mempunyai arti sinonim dengan ruang fase. Tinjauan Komponen-komponen umum diagram fase adalah garis kesetimbangan atau sempadan fase, yang merujuk pada garis yang menandakan terjadinya transisi fase. Titik tripel adalah titik potong dari garis-garis keset…
Adrian Moss Datos personalesNombre completo Adrian Jamal MossNacimiento Houston Estados Unidos14 de diciembre de 1981 (41 años)Nacionalidad(es) EstadounidenseAltura 2,04 m (6′ 8″)Carrera deportivaDeporte BaloncestoEquipo universitario Universidad de FloridaClub profesionalClub Guruyú Waston[1]Liga Torneo Metropolitano (Uruguay)Posición Pivot Títulos Campeón de la NCAA con los Flori…
Spaak (1957) Paul-Henri Charles Spaak anhörenⓘ/? (* 25. Januar 1899 in Schaerbeek/Schaarbeek bei Brüssel; † 31. Juli 1972 in Braine-l’Alleud) war ein belgischer Politiker (POB/PSB) und Funktionär internationaler Organisationen. Er war von 1938 bis 1939 und von 1946 bis 1949 Premierminister von Belgien. Als Präsident der Parlamentarischen Versammlung des Europarats (1949 bis 1951) und erster Präsident der Gemeinsamen Versammlung der Montanunion (1952 bis 1954) gilt Spaak als einer der …
LaksamanaArleigh BurkeBurke pada tahun 1951Nama lahirArleigh Albert BurkeJulukan31-knot BurkeLahir(1901-10-19)19 Oktober 1901Boulder, Colorado, A.S.Meninggal1 Januari 1996(1996-01-01) (umur 94)Bethesda, Maryland, A.S.DikebumikanPemakaman Akademi Angkatan Laut Amerika Serikat(Section 8)PengabdianAmerika SerikatDinas/cabang United States NavyLama dinas1923–1961Pangkat LaksamanaKomandanChief of Naval OperationsCruiser Division SixCruiser Division FiveUSS Huntington (CL-10…
Politics of Denmark Constitution Fundamental laws Act of Succession Freedom of Speech Freedom of the Press The Crown Monarch Queen Margrethe II Crown Prince Frederik Royal family Privy Council Purveyors to the Royal Court The unity of the Realm Denmark proper Faroe Islands Greenland Executive Government Frederiksen II Prime Minister (list) Mette Frederiksen Government Offices Ministries High Commissioners Faroe Islands Greenland Legislature Folketinget (parliament) Speaker: Søren Gade Members J…
البحرية البرازيلية الدولة برازيل الإنشاء 1822 النوع قوات بحرية الدور حرب بحرية الحجم 80,507 طاقم العاملين (بما في ذلك 16000 من مشاة البحرية)[1]أكثر من 119 سفينة81 طائرة جزء من وزارة الدفاع المقر الرئيسي برازيليا الموقع الرسمي الموقع الرسمي رئيس الأركان رئيس البرا
Artikel ini perlu diwikifikasi agar memenuhi standar kualitas Wikipedia. Anda dapat memberikan bantuan berupa penambahan pranala dalam, atau dengan merapikan tata letak dari artikel ini. Untuk keterangan lebih lanjut, klik [tampil] di bagian kanan. Mengganti markah HTML dengan markah wiki bila dimungkinkan. Tambahkan pranala wiki. Bila dirasa perlu, buatlah pautan ke artikel wiki lainnya dengan cara menambahkan [[ dan ]] pada kata yang bersangkutan (lihat WP:LINK untuk keterangan lebih lanjut). …
DomJorge Ortiga CGIHArchbishop Emeritus of BragaPrimate Emeritus of the SpainsChurchRoman Catholic ChurchArchdioceseBragaSeeBragaAppointed5 June 1999Installed18 July 1999PredecessorEurico Dias NogueiraOrdersOrdination9 July 1967Consecration3 January 1988by Eurico Dias NogueiraPersonal detailsBornJorge Ferreira da Costa Ortiga (1944-03-05) 5 March 1944 (age 79)Brufe, Vila Nova de Famalicão Municipality PortugalNationalityPortuguesePrevious post(s)Auxiliary Bishop of Braga (1987-99)Titu…
Railway station in Tokyo, Japan KK08Heiwajima Station平和島駅Station platforms, July 2023General informationLocationŌta, TokyoJapanOperated byKeihin Electric Express RailwayLine(s)Main LineConstructionStructure typeElevatedAccessibleYesHistoryOpened1901Previous namesSawada; Gakkō-ura (until 1961)Services Preceding station Following station Keikyū KamataKK11towards Uraga Main LineLimited Express (Tokkyū) Aomono-yokochōKK04towards Sengakuji Keikyū KamataKK11Terminus Main LineExpress(rush…
Kongres Nasional Partai Komunis Tiongkok ke-12 diadakan pada 1-11 September 1982, didahului oleh dinamika pada Kongres Nasional Partai Komunis Tiongkok ke-11 dan lima tahun sebelum Kongres Nasional ke-13 diselenggarakan. Kongres ini menetapkan modernisasi melalui sistem sosialisme. Pada saat yang sama pemimpin Deng Xiaoping terpilih menjadi Ketua Komisi Penasihat Pusat.[1] Referensi ^ 12th National Congress. Diarsipkan dari versi asli tanggal 2019-01-08. Diakses tanggal 2019-03-15. …
В Википедии есть статьи о других людях с фамилией Валь. Домингито де Вальисп. Dominguito de Val Домингито де Валь,гравюра Матео Гонсалеса[es], 1793 год. Родился 1243(1243)Сарагоса, Испания Умер 1250(1250)Сарагоса, Испания Почитается Католическая церковь (до II Ватиканского собора В лике катол…
Lúcio Corélio Nerácio Pansa Cônsul do Império Romano Consulado 122 d.C. Lúcio Corélio Nerácio Pansa (em latim: Lucius Corellius Neratius Pansa) foi um senador romano eleito cônsul em 122 com Mânio Acílio Avíola[1][2]. Era filho de Corélia Híspula, filha de Quinto Corélio Rufo, cônsul sufecto em 78, e Lúcio Nerácio Marcelo, cônsul sufecto em 95 e cônsul em 122. Ver também Cônsul do Império Romano Precedido por:Marco Ânio Vero II com Cneu Árrio Áugure com Marco Her…
This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items. (December 2021) During the Korean Wave (Hallyu), K-pop artists took their concerts outside of South Korea, and with increased exposure, becoming a huge success in other Asian countries. Soon after, record label companies started experimenting expanding into the western music markets outside Asia.[1] The word Hallyu (韓流; 한류) first originated in China during the 1990s by journalists that were surprised with how rapid Ko…
Pemilihan Umum Bupati Gunungkidul 2020201520249 Desember 2020[1]Kandidat Calon Sutrisna Wibawa Immawan Wahyudi Bambang Wisnu Handoyo Partai PAN NasDem PDI-P Pendamping Mahmud Ardi Widanto Martanty Soenar Dewi Benyamin Sudarmadi Suara rakyat 144.012 53.576 116.881 Persentase 30,61% 11,39% 24,85% Calon Sunaryanta Partai Partai Golongan Karya Pendamping Heri Susanto Suara rakyat 155.876 Persentase 33,15% Peta persebaran suara Sutrisna …
19th century war in North America Texas Indian warsPart of the American Indian Wars and the Mexican Indian WarsDate1820–1875LocationTexasResult Texan and United States victory Destruction of many Indigenous nations, including the Karankawa and the Akokisa and BidaiBelligerents Spain (until 1821) Mexico Republic of Texas (from 1836 to 1846) Choctaw Republic[1] United States Confederate States (from 1851-1865) ComancheOther Indigenous nations Texas Comanche wars…
1943 film Flight for FreedomTheatrical release posterDirected byLothar MendesWritten by Jane Murfin Oliver H. P. Garrett S. K. Lauren Story byHorace McCoyProduced byDavid HempsteadStarring Rosalind Russell Fred MacMurray Herbert Marshall Cinematography Frank Redman Lee Garmes Edited byRoland GrossMusic byRoy WebbDistributed byRKORelease date April 2, 1943 (1943-04-02)[1] Running time102 minutesCountryUnited StatesLanguageEnglishBox office$1.5 million (US rentals)[2]…
1987 soundtrack album by various artistsBeverly Hills Cop II: The Motion Picture Soundtrack AlbumSoundtrack album by various artistsReleased1987Length45:14LabelMCA RecordsProducerDon Simpson (exec.)Jerry Bruckheimer (exec.)André CymoneGiorgio MoroderKeith ForseyGeorge MichaelHarold FaltermeyerHowie RiceMichael VerdickNarada Michael WaldenReady for the WorldStephen BrayBeverly Hills Cop series soundtrack chronology Music from the Motion Picture Soundtrack Beverly Hills Cop(1984) Beverly …
Lokasi Pengunjung: 18.117.145.157