Talk:Piecewise function

Confusing

I found this article to be informative -- but very confusing.

I am trying to remove the confusion (lack of clarity) without introducing errors. Please help.

Why I changed what I changed:

We are talking about the definition of piecewise, I believe, not the definition of a piecewise function f(x), so we should make that clear.

If a word describes a property, it describes a noun, so that word must be an adjective, not an adverb. But the first meaning of piecewise we discuss is also an adjective, so it's confusing to say that the second meaning is an adjective.

We haven't defined interval, so we should avoid that word, but we've sort of defined piece, so it's probably okay to use that.

TH 20:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed original 2nd paragraph for clarity; added to 1st para

Here's what the original sectond paragraph said:

"According to the standard definitions, this is a single function, that happens to have its value computed by different methods in different cases. It is useful to do this, for example to make a sawtooth function. That is an example of a piecewise linear function: its graph is made up of a number of parts of the graphs of linear functions. Problems can arise at the ends of the intervals used for separate definitions. We must give a definite value for f(x) there, as everywhere else. It may be a point where continuity fails (as for the Heaviside function at 0), or where the function isn't smooth (the absolute value function at 0)."

But we never say what the "standard definitions" are, nor the non-standard definitions (if such exist), so let's not refer to them, whatever they are. Bringing in the example of a sawtooth function adds no information beyond what we provided in the Heaviside example -- also a piecewise linear function.

Every function must be defined across its entire domain, so we add nothing but confusion by stating that a piecewise function must be defined across its entire domain.

We shouldn't talk about vague "problems arising" when those problems are well known and are exactly what we are tackling when we define piecewise functions. Smoothness (differentiability) is not an issue in the definition of a piecewise function, so it will confuse the reader if we bring it up (unless we want to say that -- oh so obvious from the examples -- a piecewise function need not be differentiable across its entire domain).

Is there a piecewise function whose major structure is not if-then-else? If so, please fix the article and provide (there or here in Discussion) an example. Otherwise, this is a critical fact, since many people think of functions as having only arithmetic-like (not logic-like) definitions.

TH 20:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified and clarified last paragraph

Here's what the last paragraph originally said:

"The definitions of piecewise continuous, piecewise differentiable and so on are therefore made, to require that the 'pieces' of the function are continuous (resp. differentiable), but that at the end points failure of those conditions is allowed. A path said to be piecewise continuously differentiable is a continuous path (in the plane, say) but which can at some points turn direction sharply, so the continuity of the derivative vector at those points doesn't hold".

Pretty clearly the original was implying in a number of places that piecewise and piecewise continuous are synonyms, so I made the synonymy explicit. The word "path" adds nothing to the reader's understanding of what we've been saying about a function. The phrase "in the plane, say" adds nothing to the reader's understanding, so I took it out. The word "sharply" is not very clear -- if we meant instantaneously, then that's just another (unnecessary) repetition of what we've been saying throughout the article.

TH 21:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

Isn't the following definition better:

A function f(x) is said to be piecewise P (with P = continuous, differentiable, and so forth) if the subset of the domain where it fails to be P only contains isolated points.

This would be my intuitive definition. --14:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.100.53 (talk • contribs)

Piecewise Smooth?

I was redirected here from 'piecewise smooth.' I get what piecewise means now but what does piecewise smooth mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.204.189.42 (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse definition

If possible, could the technical term for a "non-piecewise function" be added? -- Robbiemorrison (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

piecewise

preciseness 49.145.160.177 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2024/Mar#Piecewise. fgnievinski (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It was proposed in this section that Piecewise be renamed and moved to Piecewise mathematical object.

result:
Moved to Piecewise function. See consensus below to move away from the current title to a noun or noun phrase; however, we see no firm agreement about which title is best. So in accord with WP:OTHEROPTIONS, the closer picks a title, hopefully the highest and best for this article. The choices are:

Piecewise mathematical object, by nominating editor IP 142+
Piecewise property, by editor D.Lazard
Piecewise (disambiguation), by editor Taku
Piecewiseness, by editor Vincent Lefèvre
Piecewise-defined function, by editor fgnievinski
Piecewise function, by editor Tito Omburo

Of the titles proposed below, the one to come closest to a consensus is the chosen title, Piecewise function. The OTHEROPTIONS guide tells us, "As this result does not indicate a consensus for the chosen title, anyone who objects to the closer's decision may make another move request at any time, and is advised to create such a request instead of taking the closure to move review." Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move logs: source title · target title

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

~~Piecewise → Piecewise mathematical object~~ Piecewise → Piecewise function – Per WP:NOUN. The adjective title is jarring. Previous discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics/Archive/2024/Mar#Piecewise. Mathematical object should include everything, addressing concerns about the concept needing to cover piecewise linear manifold and piecewise linear curve ~~174.92.25.207 (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)~~ 142.113.140.146 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 20:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This suggested title is much more jarring for a mathematician than the existing title. Moreover, "piecewise" qualifies generally a property, not a mathematical object. Grammatically, it is generally not used as an adjective, but as an adverb that qualifies an adjective ("piecewise function" seems an exception, but it is only an abbrevation of "piecewise-defined function")
Suggestion. A move Piecewise → Piecewise property would satisfy WP:NOUN and better correspond to the mathematical meaning.

D.Lazard (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turning into a disambig page. I don’t think there is a mathematical notion called "piecewise". What we have instead are a piecewise-defined function, piecewise-smooth curve, piecewise linear structure, piecewise algebraic space, etc. They are distinct concepts, not manifestations of some unifying notion. —- Taku (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In all the case, "piecewise" means that the property that is qualified (way of defining a function, smoothness, being linear, being algebraic, etc.) is true on disjoint open intervals or sets whose union complement has an empty interior. This meaning is sufficiently clear for being understood this way (without further explanation) by experimented mathematicians. So a dab page would be confusing and even disruptive, since a reader that encounters an example that is not among those listed in the dab page should access many articles for trying to find an explantion. In short, a dab page is not convenient for a concept that can be defined in a few lines, and whose all occurences in Wikipedia are examples of instances of this concept. D.Lazard (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there is a linguistic meaning of piecewise as piece-by-piece. But it’s not a precise mathematical term, in that you can’t find any textbook defining “piecewise” instead of “piecewise X”. ("continuous” is an adjective too but there is a well-established notion of continuity today if not so in the past.) This seems to be the underlying issue leading to this thread. The purpose of a dab page is that the readers should be pointed to more specific articles, since that’s more helpful than giving an impression that “piecewise “ is a precise mathematical notion. As you said, we may guess the intended meaning of piecewise from the past experiences, but that’s not how we write a Wikipedia article; an article needs to be based on reliable sources, —- Taku (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. A move Piecewise → Piecewiseness would satisfy WP:NOUN. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Piecewiseness instead Vincent Lefèvre. Slightly weak until I make a list of quotes and write a definition for Wiktionary so this becomes a real word (only 168 Google results, but appears on Math.SE).~~ I listed both adjective and adverb examples at wikt:piecewise. With "piecewise-defined function" by Fgnievinski, we need to decide if it has a primary topic of linear piecewise functions or it is a broad-concept article that also covers piecewise polynomial functions. If we collect other things under Related concepts, we could spin off Piecewiseness before, during, after the move, or later.

I don't think "Piecewise property" is a good name. Both set-theoretic properties (associative, commutative, distributive, etc.) and universal properties are external. Piecewiseness is internal. Are there any internal things we call "X property"? The 2nd paragraph of the lede, I think of as "piecewise property property", although sounding unusual. ~~174.92.25.207 (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)~~ 142.113.140.146 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Piecewise-defined function", as the main concept. Anything else can go under section Piecewise-defined function#Related concepts. fgnievinski (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Mathematics has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 20:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: We have Piecewise property, a disambig page, Piecewiseness, Piecewise-defined function, and the nom target Piecewise mathematical object as suggested options, but no obvious consensus forming, please take those into consideration ASUKITE 20:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to piecewise-defined function (or even piecewise function). Very clear to me that this article is specifically about that, and we don't need a title that could introduce ambiguity into the article's scope. Tito Omburo (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The suggested title is more convoluted and reads worse than the existing one. While both Piecewise function or Piecewise-defined function are good targets as that's what's in the article's scope, I would prefer a move to Piecewise function . Piecewise linear manifold is a separate article and piecewise linear curve is a redirect, I don't see their supposed inclusion in this article as an argument. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – prefer Piecewise function as a clear and concise noun phrase. I've actually hardly heard anyone say Piecewise-defined function, although a case can be made since "piecewise" is an adverb. Support turning Piecewise into a disambiguation page. IntGrah (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: "Piecewise function" is actually misleading (cf. 2nd sentence of the lead, and D.Lazard's above vote). I'd prefer (in that order:) "Piecewise property", "Piecewise" (as is), or "Piecewise-defined function". - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I checked Anton's Calculus, and they use "piecewise-defined function". Tito Omburo (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification – I can support moving this page to a piecewise function or a piecewise-defined function. My early vote is that, after such a move, the page with the title "piecewise" should be a disambig page. Taku (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: There is no support for the nom target, and still no consensus on alternatives proposed. The options appear to be Piecewise property, Piecewise (no change), Piecewise-defined function, or Piecewise function. If agreement cannot be reached the discussion should be closed as no consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I prefer the current title. It's accurately describes the concept. Waqar💬 15:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to either Piecewise function or to Piecewise-defined function. Calling it a "property" seems weird to me: "this function has the property of being piecewise"? No one ever says that. Nor would anyone write "the piecewise property is carried over into ...", "it is necessary to use the piece-wise property..." "in all cases it is sufficient for the function to have the piecewise property" Yuck. That's just ill. No to the idea of calling it a "property". 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Piecewise function. That is the WP:COMMONNAME for what is also known as as a piecewise-defined function. See Google Ngrams. Piecewise should then remain a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for Piecewise function over the other less prominent subjects. SilverLocust 💬 20:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverLocust Disagree that Piecewise should be a primary redirect – it's too short of a title to suggest Piecewise function and there are many other usages in mathematics. IntGrah (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Changing to Support alt Piecewise function as nom per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Having studied undergrad-level math, I mainly worked with more concrete objects. "Piecewise property" only has 1,670 Google hits, so it may be a lesser known graduate-level or specialized topic. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  However, one concern is that Piecewise_linear_function already exists. How to carry out this RM is uncertain. It has become partly a WP:PM, WP:PROPSPLIT or WP:AFD. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post move

There is a discussion at User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth#NAC_at_Talk:Piecewise. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems we still wanted to move. In this case we should deal with the existing articles:

Split the § Related concepts part to Piecewise property
Merge from Piecewise_linear_function or {{excerpt}}, to reduce duplication

142.113.140.146 (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SPLIT and WP:MERGE for further information. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 00:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I split the abstract part to Draft:Piecewise property as a WP:DAB. (EDIT: @RM participants,) Please review it.

I did not find much to merge except for a few examples. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not the best one to ask to review the draft. Perhaps the editors involved with this article would give you better advice? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Taku: in the above RM survey you mentioned, "The purpose of a dab page is that the readers should be pointed to more specific articles". Just a gentle reminder to watch out for WP:PTMs if you should decide to proceed with dabbing. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piecewise property which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]