Talk:Spline interpolation

Terrible article

This article shows everything that is wrong with mathematical articles on Wikipedia. First, it has a short, semi-technical introduction that doesn't really give a good introduction to subject. Then it dives headfirst into a very long winded page of math, with an "algorithm" that provides little clarity on what the spline does. To me, an algorithm should provide enough clarity to code something. You basically have to know what ordinary differential equations are just to start. Finally it has an example that is just as technical as the "algorithm". If you can understand anything on this page, you probably already know what spline interpolation is anyway, rendering it pointless to the target audience.

If you ask me Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for mathematical proofs, which are generally not of interest to non-mathematicians. And I also think it is also not the place for algorithms - this is where external links should come into place. It would be much better if a lay explanation of what spline interpolation is used for, why it is important, and the history behind how it came to be derived. 153.176.151.122 (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the algorithm isn’t actually an algorithm; algorithms need at least some description of steps to execute, generally, not long-winded proof-style prose involving nth-order derivatives. And then, if you actually try to work through it, the equations are pointlessly complex (you can pull a lot of the subexpressions out into proper named variables for clarity and compactness), and t is being used in two completely different fashions within several paragraphs, as a function, a constant, and a dependent variable! There are even bizarre sentences like

For the elastic rulers being the model for the spline interpolation, one has that to the left of the left-most "knot" and to the right of the right-most "knot" the ruler can move freely…

And if one’s going to go high-formal with something like this, there still need to be specific logical steps laid out, and each needs to be properly founded on prior steps or stated assumptions so the reader (who might be decades past dimly-remembered calculus classes) can actually follow it.

No offense to the author, bless them, but it’s an exasperating wreckage, and then if one, say, wants to look at an actual implementation by clicking the one C link, it’s dead. I might kill it with fire fix this if I can find some spare time.

But imo both proofs and algorithms are fine—Wikipedia has plenty of both—they’re no different than photos, animations, sounds, music, or diagrams, all of which are lumped and linked in. They just need to be accompanied by descriptive text: What is it that happens, why does it happen, what mechanisms the proof uses, etc. And embedding solves the dead link problem, which is only going to become worse as the slop takes over and censorship ramps up. Nerd4code (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

"Download as pdf" doesn't seem to work

When you create a pdf by clicking "Download as pdf", some of the maths formula disappear. I am not sure how to fix this. --Panoramix bzh (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be omitting the formulae that are numbered. Probably to do with the issue it notes on the page that generates the PDF, "Currently some documents do not contain tables". The alternative is to use your browser/OS to generate the PDF. E.g. in Safari on my Mac. I can choose "Export to PDF..." from the File menu, or "Print..." then "Save as PDF..." from the Print dialog.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, I mamaged to print it like you suggested but I was wondering if there was an easy way to fix the page.--Panoramix bzh (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Additional wording for less-technical readers

I added some explanatory English text to this article to try to help readers who may have trouble with just the math as given, and some small grammar changes in places to help clarify things. I think this article could be useful, but in its prior form, it was very hard to understand, so I tried to make small changes to fix it if I could. It's still not that clear, but I think it's better than it was. I hope my edits are helpful; if not, please be gentle. Seanofw (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)