Talk:Integration by parts

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

An alternative notation has the advantage that the factors of the original expression are identified as f and g

Why is that an advantage? It seems arbitrary to say it's better to call them f and g than to call them u and v. Michael Hardy 00:27, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. The "classic" notation tells you what to do when you are integrating "f(x)g'(x)". The "alternative" integrates "f(x)g(x)". See? -- Tarquin 18:58, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I suggest the author of section 4 “recursive formulation” http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Integration_by_parts&action=edit&section=4 of the article Integration_by_parts to revise the recursive formula that is suspected to be mistaken or notation needs to be further clarified. It seems to differ from the corresponding formula in Mathworld: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IntegrationbyParts.html. Consider inclusion of another term on RHS, integral of product of some functions.

In the section Recursive formulation, what are the ${\displaystyle v_{i}\,}$? Are they distinct?

Thanks!

I am in strong doubt about most of the given names for the tabular form of repeated integration by parts. Especially, I have a hard time to assume that this film title is really given in the cited reference. Purgy (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For now I consider this as settled. Purgy (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a strange math formatting glitch occurring on this page, though only on the desktop version, with a wide page. The formatting for "dv = v'(x)dx" in the third paragraph mysteriously has the second v rotated 90 degrees counter-clockwise, as well as mirrored (I think). Worth noting is that this doesn't show up on the mobile version, neither in the app or on en.m.wikipedia.org, and it disappears when the window is made narrower. I would attempt to fix it, but I'm personally entirely clueless on why this occurs

On further inspection, there are lots of occurrences of this glitch on this page, seemingly at random. There's more twisted vs, but I've also spotted at least one x, and even a prime.

TerraDOOM (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]