clean up section 1.4 text/figure correlation for Gamma function#3
Open
clark-archer wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
clean up section 1.4 text/figure correlation for Gamma function#3clark-archer wants to merge 2 commits into
clark-archer wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
added 2 commits
September 28, 2013 21:58
Changed f(x) to g(x) in figure 1.4 and changed definition to use the variable 'x' rather than 'z'.
Contributor
Author
|
Should we close this one w/o merging? I wasn't sure I had it right. |
Owner
|
I'm still thinking about it; changing the name to g(x) is probably a good idea. I like using z as the independent variable, since it is really a complex parameter. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
First off, I'm not sure this is correct as I don't yet understand the Gamma function. Hence the 'maybe' in the branch name. However, it seems clearer to use g(x) rather than f(x) in the figure and I think that the variable should be 'x' instead of 'z'.