Talk:Related rates

I'm Confused[edit]

What is the example supposed to demonstrate? Does it even solve anything? --Brandon Dilbeck 05:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the example has now been changed. Newyorkbrad 22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah yeah, I was referring to this example, from June. It was kind of a lame excuse for a demonstration. --Brandon Dilbeck 22:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the sector of a circle of radius r has a given perimeter L. show that L=4r for maximum area of the sector. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.119.32 (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance to Wikipedia[edit]

I wonder if this page even belongs on Wikipedia. It seems to be more instructional than expository. Perhaps we should mark it for deletion?

Coolkid70 (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This page would do better in the Wikiversity. I feel that an article on related rates on Wikipedia should discuss its place in calculus textbooks and maybe discuss how giving a name to this is silly since French or Germans don't even have a name for this, they just think of that as applications of the chain rule. 313.kohler (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No no, this page is fine. It helped me pass my math test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janinebean17 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Persons who are searching Related rates in Wikipedia are not necessarily looking only for historical information on what it is, but may be either students looking for help on how to approach solving such problems (as stated above by Unsigned), or forgetful engineers (like me) who learned this stuff eons ago and want a quick reminder on how to set up a problem because we have not used the chain rule for decades. I understand that this may not be the intention for articles in Wikipedia; it nevertheless remains the matter of fact of how it is used. Instead of deleting, perhaps it may be sufficient to rename the article to imply that it provides how to guidance rather than what is guidance -- or else, just leave it alone. It helped me. Pcsanza (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a rule in Wikipedia that maths articles are unintelligible by anyone that is not a Ph.D. mathematician. This one bucks that trend. I would suggest a little less chatty would be good. Tuntable (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]